Sitting of 19 April 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Water and Sewerage Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
10.4 am
Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am delighted to have the opportunity today to initiate this debate about regulation of the water industry because, of all public services, water is the one that is most central to human life and well-being. If it is managed well, people always pay up without question for their water and sewerage. They do not want to give it a second thought. They want to turn on the tap for a drink, watch the rain run down the gutters and roadside grates and flush the toilet. They do not feel the need to say thank you to the Government, the regulator or the water companies because they feel that water is a right that they earn by being a citizen of this country.
Yet if anything goes wrong—if the water is brown when it comes out of the tap, if it does not come out of the tap at all, if the drains are blocked, or if people are suddenly asked to pay a great deal more—there starts to be public outrage.
There is no question but that there is an immense amount of consumer dissatisfaction with the water industry at present. In a survey by the Consumers Association last year, the water industry came out bottom of all the regulated industries on every count of consumer satisfaction, including satisfaction with delivery and relationship with the consumer.
It is interesting that a study undertaken by Elaine Kempson into water debt and disconnection, published last month by the Policy Studies Institute, showed clearly that water debt had increased by nine times since privatisation. So people are no longer happy simply to pay their water bill and forget it. The document concluded that the reason was partly the resentment and dissatisfaction that people feel about the industry.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that the Opposition have been interested in the past few months in the issue of public ownership and what it signifies. Water is what public ownership means. As the rain comes down and the children play in the rivers or streams this summer, they and their parents do not believe that the substance they are using is anything other than publicly owned. That explains the resentment about this privatisation of this utility. People have never believed that water belonged to anyone so that it could be sold off.
It is interesting that yesterday's debate about the environment agency and pollution control and regulation saw the House in a remarkably consensual mood. There
130
was no vote. There was agreement among all hon. Members that the agency could be a good move forward if the correct powers were given to it.
However, there is no such consensus about the operation of the water industry. I should like to spend a few moments today to discover where the blame for that lies, to what extent it lies with the Government or with regulation, and to what extent the two are indivisible.
In the earlier clauses of the Water Act 1989, the two are balanced and almost indivisible, because the duties are placed on the Minister or, if he delegates them, on the Director general of the Office of Water Services. It is clear that the regulator's first duty was to look after the financial well-being and management of the water companies. His duty to act in the interests of customers and consumers secondary, which could be one element of what has gone wrong.
The regulatory system—I shall return to the subject of whether it is the regulator or the Government—has failed on five counts, however. It has failed on prices, interference in the industry's charging systems, the absence of interference where it is necessary, undertaking the necessary research into the industry, and the inability to devolve to local democratic committees some of the consumer-based interests that should be represented in the water industry's regulatory system. Colleagues might want to mention others.
The system has failed on prices, because the regulator's main duty is to be an economic regulator, and his main power to act on behalf of consumers is to limit charges. The regulator was to control the industry by suggesting a K factor, with which we are all now familiar, by which companies could raise prices over and above inflation in a particular year. Unfortunately, in 1989 there were no negative K factors, although no excuses were given. The companies had to comply with factors that were all positive numbers, well above the inflation rate.
By 1993, it was clear that the K factors were over-generous, profits were rising sharply, prices were on the increase, and these rapidly growing multinational enterprises had a general cushion of surplus. As time went on, it became clear that the cushion was being creamed off at the top for top executives and share options. In England and Wales, profits had risen from £710 million in 1989 to £1.5 billion in 1993–94, with a 67 per cent. increase in water charges. Top salaries had increased by 228 per cent. since privatisation.
Those three issues caused an immense public furore. The public have realised that privatisation has not been in their interests, but has simply been in those of the big companies and their shareholders and chief executives, and that the regulator appeared to be unable to do anything to stop that.
In 1993, Ian Byatt recognised that the initial K factors were probably too generous, and that the asset base and ease with which the water industry could cope with its economic future had probably been underestimated. At about that time, I became really interested in the water industry, and the cross-party group was established.
Time and again, we suggested that it might be appropriate to claw back some of the excess profit. The reaction was that nothing could be clawed back, because the surplus proved how creditable the regulatory system had been. The regulator even suggested that it showed how good the incentive that he had presented with the K factors had been when the industry was privatised in 1989.

131
Had the Government and the Director general of Water Services said that they had got it wrong in 1992–93—I know that the system was for a five-year price review, and that was only three years on—and that they would claw back some of the surplus and pull the price regime right down, much of the public anger and outrage would have dissipated, and the Government would be finding it easier to justify what is happening in the water industry.
In 1994, I believe that they got the K factor review wrong again, as do a number of experts in the City, as the "Panorama" programme showed. It is interesting that, less than a year after the review that was supposed to impose tight controls over the water companies, North West Water has been able to pay back £6.50 to each of its customers.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: It is somewhat strange that Sir Desmond Pitcher, the chairman of North West Water, should have written to all the consumers in the north-west to make them aware that the company is proposing a bonus of £6.50 per customer for the next five years because of the additional profit that it is making from the way in which the industry is regulated, as if it is giving us something, when in reality it is overcharging us in the first place.
Mrs. Jackson: That endorses my point. North West Water certainly has £6.50 per customer to spare following the K factor review last year. As I know that other hon. Members want to speak, I shall move on to the next issue.
The Government and the regulator have also got the charging systems fundamentally wrong. There is a contradiction between statements that charging systems were the responsibility of the water companies and that they were free to manage their businesses and choose how they wanted customers to pay for water and sewerage services, and, on the other hand, the claim that they can do so only if they place the main emphasis on a metering system of payment in the long term.
Ian Byatt's preference for metering is well known throughout the industry, and he is entitled to that opinion. He wrote about it in "Paying for Water" in 1991, and he still refers to that document, even though it is five years old, in reply to any queries about Ofwat's policy on the issue.
"Paying for Water" was written before the Government had finally abandoned the poll tax, and while the Conservative party was still claiming that it was fair to make each household pay for public services in proportion to the amount that they used them. That is the principle of metering that is set out in "Paying for Water", and it is the poll tax principle, which has been discredited and booted out by this Parliament. It is simply inappropriate for water and sewerage, which are the most essential public services.
The average water bill of an ordinary household breaks down roughly as follows: 40 per cent. relates to the drinking water supply, of which some 80 per cent. relates to the fixed cost of water treatment works—pipework and the infrastructure that delivers that drinking water—and 20 per cent. relates to the volume of water that goes through that infrastructure; 20 per cent. of the water bill relates to surface water drainage and the pipe work, guttering and infrastructure that takes water off the roads,
132
gardens and land. It cannot be appropriate to measure that by metering domestic households. The remainder of the bill—a further 40 per cent.—relates to the sewerage side of the industry, waste water and sewage treatment. Surely we shall not try to measure the amount of sewage that each household produces.
If my arithmetic is correct, the argument about conserving water and metering relates to just 8 per cent. of the industry's costs for average domestic water purposes. Some 30 per cent. of the water used by an ordinary household is to flush the toilet, and only 10 per cent. is used for extra household activities such as washing the car and watering plants. The remainder is used for baths, showers, washing food and drinking. Hon. Members on both sides of the House do not feel that it is important that people should cut down on those.
The compulsory element in insisting that people pay for water and sewerage by a measured system is inappropriate. If the regulator says that he is neutral on that issue and that companies can choose their own charging systems, it cannot be appropriate for him to be so paranoid about insisting on metering, when water companies are trying to do the best for their customers.
In Yorkshire, there has been much public outrage about compulsory metering, especially on housing association estates in Bradford, Sheffield and other big towns, where people do not have large incomes. Yorkshire Water has been prepared to listen to public concern, and has met groups from the Lower Grange estate in Bradford and local authority associations.
It decided to move right away from the compulsory element of charging, even on new properties, and its decision was endorsed by both the local housing federation and the local Ofwat customer services committee. Yorkshire Water took that decision at board level and said that it would devise notional rateable values for every new house built since 1989, so that every customer in Yorkshire could have that choice. What could be wrong with that?
Unfortunately, the regulator's response was to write a letter to the managing director of every other water company in the country, saying:
"I am disappointed that the company has decided to allow this concession"—
not choice, but a concession—
"to customers in new properties. However, before this scheme can come into operation Yorkshire Water will need to demonstrate to me that any notional rateable values avoid any bias".
He therefore has an opportunity to sit on those notional rateable values before Yorkshire Water can put its policy into effect.
The regulator goes on to say:
"The ability to opt for a charge based on a notional rateable value will be strictly time-limited and subsequent owner-occupiers would not be allowed to opt for a charge based on notional rateable value."
From someone who says that he will not interfere in charging methods, that is incredible. I do not know whether it applies just to Yorkshire Water, but it comes after Mr. Byatt's refusal to accept the renomination of the chairman of the Yorkshire customer services committee, who was well backed by Members of Parliament from both sides and consumer groups throughout the county.
That interference is another indication of the failure of the present system—Government plus regulator. Since becoming involved in this issue, I have been surprised

133
at how many press releases, research papers and briefing documents are produced by the water regulator's office. Some of those comparative statistics are useful, while the press releases and comments are less useful. But I am also surprised at how little good information and research has been done on relevant issues.
For example, when Ofwat commissioned research into different charging methods through the Institute of Fiscal Studies about two years ago, the institute was specifically asked not to investigate the possibility of charging on the basis of council tax bands. It could investigate charging on any other property bands, even though of the options being considered by the water companies, council tax bands made the most sense. It was left to the Water Companies Association to do the best piece of research on charging systems, which they presented to the Minister last September, and to which the Minister responded two weeks ago.
Similarly, the Select Committee was surprised that, given all the controversy about disconnections and whether those happened because people would not or could not pay, no research had been done—none was even authorised or intended to be authorised—by Ofwat or Mr. Byatt on the reasons for disconnections. The first piece of evidence on that has now been produced by the Policy Studies Institute. It shows that, as we all knew, people are disconnected because they have not enough money to pay the ever rising bills. Those are just some of the issues on which the opportunity for good-quality research has been missed.
The same applies to conservation. If we are to debate whether the best means of conserving water is to make a major effort to reduce leakage or introduce domestic water metering, Ofwat should have authorised research to discover that. Instead, it has been left, once again, to someone else, in this case the National Rivers Authority to do the best piece of research about leakage. The water companies, too, are beginning to make progress in that area.
I have been disappointed—and, to an extent, shocked—by the lack of responsibility that the director general has taken over safety and security within sewage treatment works. The question was raised in Yorkshire whether it should be totally contracted out to private contractors. The director general had nothing to say on that, and gave private contractors no guidelines to ensure that sewage was treated safely and securely. Until recently, there were no guidelines on, for example, specifications on sewer pipework. That has been of great concern to clay pipe manufacturers, who have felt that, since privatisation, the water industry has not been acting responsibly in undertaking that sort of research and information. On all those issues, the regulator has left a great deal unsaid and uninvestigated.
Many Opposition Members, and possibly Conservative Members, have been unable to understand why the regulator had nothing to say on chief executives' pay and salaries, and why Mr. Byatt felt that he had nothing to say on charging systems to the major local authority conference on the subject on 13 March in Liverpool.
We do not understand why he had nothing to say to people who complained about compulsory metering to the Ofwat customer services committees. As it was an issue of charging, he was not prepared to include those complaints in his published schedule of complaints. A whole list exists of areas where the regulator or the
134
regulator/Government have been unwilling or unable to listen and respond to the immense public concern that has developed about the industry.
I should like to feel that it is not too late even for this Government, but I think that we will have to wait for the next one. The root of the problem lies in the lack of understanding that we are talking not about a commodity which can be left to the free market and in the private sector, and which somehow will be all right with a bit of economic regulation drawing together the statistics, but about a public resource and utility—water, which is owned by the public.
Unless the Government and regulator absolutely understand that basic fact, it is never going to be right. The only answer is for the Government to accept that responsibility and the outrage that the public feel about what has happened to their crucial public industry, and to say that, for the moment, they will take over the regulation of the industry, and take responsibility for it.
Only yesterday, we agreed on a consensual basis that we have the makings in the environment agency of an excellent body that will control one side of the whole water cycle business. The other side is a mess. It will remain a mess until the Government get hold of it, take it out of the so-called independent regulator's hands, pull it together and deal with it in the interests of the public.
10.32
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on procuring this debate, and on her consistent interest in the water industry. The House and country will be grateful for that. She has made some fair points. I declare a non-interest. I am the honorary president of the Water Companies Association. I am not paid, and it has not asked me to speak, but it is a matter of record.
I was at one stage a Minister with responsibility for the environment and the water industry in Northern Ireland. When I was a junior Minister at the Department of Employment, I noticed how the sewerage system in London had not kept up with demands. Bazalgette sewers seemed to back-fill during storms, and water reached the third floor of the Department of Employment offices in Tothill street. It was not very pleasant.
The hon. Lady has a couple of things wrong. If one lined up the water company chairmen, picked the one in the middle and asked what they were paid, the answer would be that they were paid 20 per cent. less than the leader of the Labour party's press agent. It is worth putting across the fact that, even when the Labour party was so proud that the water industry was nationalised, 20 per cent. of the country's water consumers received their supplies from companies that had not been nationalised. It is also worth noting that some people, including an uncle of mine in Shropshire, had their own water supply.
Therefore, the idea that the water industry was all in the hands of nationalised industries under chairmen appointed by Ministers is wrong. One of the reasons why the Labour party has been traditionally so in favour of state-controlled industries is that that allows it to appoint people to those jobs, rather than people being chosen on merit.
When the Labour party decides what it intends to renationalise, it would be interesting to know whether it intends to nationalise water supply companies that have

135
never been nationalised. If it proposes to go further than it has gone before, it should be willing to say so openly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who may speak for the Opposition in the debate will say clearly whether they intend to renationalise any water company, and, if so, whether they intend to renationalise all of them.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made an important point about whether ordinary domestic consumers in ordinary homes—small houses and flats—should have to pay the long-run marginal costs of their supply, or pay more of an average cost. No real debate exists about industrial consumers and large users. There is no point in discussing that further. The interesting question is whether people living in small household units, especially those who do not have the opportunity to run a garden hose all day and all night through the summer so that they can have a better-looking lawn than their neighbours, should have a meter, or some alternative system that would have the same sort of effect.
The information that the hon. Lady gave about the degree of discretionary cost that the ordinary consumer and the small household might have in relation to the water supply was interesting and important. I think in the same way in relation to dealing with the cost of disposal of waste water, and of treatment of isolated pockets of population and their sewage—a legitimate matter of debate, which will be raised by my hon. Friends representing the south-west.
The Government could easily have said that some of the cost should have been met on a pooling basis. Issues involving the coastline and the distribution of population are not fully appreciated by those of us who represent or live in areas like London, which does not have anything like the same level of treatment expenses as coastal areas.
I want to go a stage further. I put it to the hon. Lady and to the House that it is ludicrous to believe that, under predominantly public ownership, a golden age of water and sewerage existed. Every five years or so, a Minister, who may be called the Secretary of State for the Environment or some other title, will announce that we need £20,000 million of capital investment.
Year after year, five years after five years, a Minister would make that great announcement, and the investment would not happen, because capital investment in the water industry—both in relation to supply and disposal—had to compete with capital investment and current expenditure in education, the health service, defence, and the railways, and with subsidising other nationalised industries, which were losing a fortune. Investment for quality, equality of improvement and higher and more modern standards of sewage treatment just did not happen.
People should consider water companies' profits—here I go beyond the Water Companies Association companies, because they are involved only in water supply and not in treatment—and relate them to the degree of investment in the past few years. It would have been helpful to the House if the hon. Lady had given the figures on the investment level increase, and if she had information on how companies profit surpluses relate to their capital investment. If the hon. Lady wants me to give way, I shall happily do so.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: I accept that the investment level has gone up substantially, but what I and, I suspect, water
136
customers do not accept is that they, in the past five years, through price increases of 67 per cent., have carried that degree of new investment cost, especially when the whole purpose of privatisation was said to have been to enable new companies in the private sector to have greater flexibility, to borrow in the longer term, and to finance their investment in that way.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady makes a better argument, and I acknowledge that.
There are arguments about what level of gearing the companies should have aimed at. They are pretty secure and stable. They are regulated, so they are unlikely to go bust. They can borrow money on pretty fine terms. They are of interest to major investors, who know that there is a long-term customer relationship; it is not similar to investing in motor car manufacture or some of the other things that may go through fashions. As the hon. Lady says, we shall continue to need water.
There is also the issue of fairness between different companies on the green dowry and other matters, but I do not wish to discuss those matters now. However, I want the hon. Member for Hillsborough to acknowledge that investment has increased mightily in the past few years, and that investment is dramatically greater than profits. I am willing to debate the other arguments.
Mr. David Nicholson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that hon. Members representing Devon and Cornwall constituencies very much welcome what he has said about the problem in the south-west. Does he agree that another advantage of privatisation is that it has enabled the privatised water companies to invest and lend their skill to water developments throughout the world, which is greatly to the benefit of this country's balance of payments and reputation throughout the world?
Mr.Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made a serious and important argument. Anyone who reads Water Bulletin will be aware of some of the spread of our expertise and talent. The privatised water companies are also bringing into this country other people who have an interest in showing that their techniques can be used here.
May I briefly say how much I welcome the number of people who contribute to Water Aid, whereby the water industry uses the voluntary giving of many of its customers to help extend the use of water throughout the world? The idea that water is a free good will come as a surprise to the people in KwaZulu/Natal, where people, mainly women, have to carry water large distances. I pay tribute to companies such as the Umgeni Water Company, which, through what is called reticulation—getting the pipes through—will bring water to 175,000 more people a year each year for the next five years.
We should pay some attention to the life cycle approach to water usage, which is why, in the case of larger houses, I do not think that it is necessarily right simply to use rateable value or some proxy for it; but that is a matter of detail. It is not my role, or that of anyone in the House, to defend the water regulator, but I think that it is right that he has encouraged open discussion, debate and argument. I pay tribute to the way in which he has done that. By taking a pretty firm economist's view to water, he is doing a service. I do not think that he got his K factors that far wrong. I am glad that they are smaller now than they were.

137
I wish to make two final arguments. I want to break an official secret—or rather, as I am not a civil servant, commit a ministerial indiscretion. I once sat with half the Cabinet and various other junior Ministers, trying to discuss the pension arrangements of the deputy chairman of Thames Water, and after about an hour and a quarter, we had not reached a decision. That is not a job for Ministers. Ministers should stay away from that type of decision. If the Labour party wants to go back to it, it only needs to read the diaries of former Labour Cabinet Ministers to discover how incompetent politicians are when they start becoming involved in that level of detail.
I hope that all the water companies will take it as their responsibility to continue reducing the number of disconnections. I hope that, in their statistics, they will distinguish between the people who are "won't-payers" rather than "can't-payers" and show that they do want to become involved with the "can't-payers" as soon as possible to reach agreements about debt management and continuation of water supply. That is important.
I challenge the legislative requirement that a water company must take someone who has not paid their account to court before being able to use the disconnection process. I have not read any analysis of the way in which the ordinary consumer who cannot pay gains by that process. If that process means an extra £30 or £60 on the bill because a court order has been obtained, how does that help? If analysis had shown that half the, poor customers were told by the court that they did not have to pay and they would not be disconnected, there might be a purpose in requiring the court application. However, at the moment it is one of those silly ideas, designed to help the poor, which in fact penalises them.
10.44 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The privatisation process threw a sharp spotlight on the role of the regulator and of the Government; on the role of Government, because the Government, in disentangling themselves from the water industry, had to show that the new privatised industry and the regulatory system could deliver to consumers a fair and affordable deal; and on the role of the regulator, because it remained to be seen whether it would ensure that that process took place effectively and efficiently.
In my opinion, the record of what has happened since then has cast a pretty poor light on both. Regulation has failed on several counts. I shall highlight a few of those.
First, directors have had excessive pay increases, and there has been excessive shareholder profit. Notwithstanding that much of the paper profit goes into investment and cleaning up, the excessive profit to shareholders reflected in the share price and dividends appears inexplicable, in view of the role that the regulator is meant to take.
In a monopoly industry, in which there is effectively no real risk, in which there is no chance of losing customers—indeed, the customer base is increasing, if anything, as a result of greater industrial use, greater consumer use and greater numbers of households—there is no reason why the returns of directors of the privatised industry had to be so much greater than those that the same people, in most cases, received when it was a state industry. The fact that that happened places a major
138
question mark over the way in which the regulatory system was set up, or the way in which the regulator operates it.
Above all, I believe that, in an industry in which there is no real risk for shareholders, the rates of return that shareholders have received have been unacceptable. That has been shown to be the case with the increases that have taken place in the value of those shares. If the industry had been priced and regulated correctly, that process would not have gone on.
On the K factor and decisions that the regulator has taken about that, we have to ask whether it has been tough enough, given that share prices have increased after the regulator's announcements about the K factor, in the first round across the board for the water companies, including those water companies that have been most heavily hit by new requirements to clean up the sewage problems.
After the K factor was announced, those people who were confronted with the highest costs nevertheless noticed increases in share prices in the local water company. That happened again in the latest round, with the one exception of South West Water Services Ltd., about which an appeal is under way; we do not know what the final settlement will be. That rate of increase in the share prices since privatisation casts a severe doubt on the effectiveness of the regulator.
One final aspect in which I believe there has been clear unacceptable practice is in the diversification of the water companies into sectors not connected with their core business and with very different risk levels. Indeed, I would question whether, in the rules affecting directors, some of those decisions were acceptable on a purely commercial basis, let alone in the regulatory structure and the intentions of Government.
The best example of that is the speculative investment in a bid for West Country Television by South West Water Services. It paid off, because it won the bid. Had it not won it, however, that would have been throwing money away. It would have been throwing water customers' money away. I do not believe that a water company has a legitimate role investing in a speculative bid for a television company.
One problem which the regulator has failed to tackle and which has a direct impact on customers' bills is the difficulty of obtaining the right mix between raising capital and relying on profit to fund the capital investment. Water prices could have been significantly lower had the regulator chosen the capital option rather than taxing the customer for that investment. I do not believe that the decision taken would have been made in any business other than one with a monopoly. Why did not the regulator take stronger action? Why have not Ministers had a greater involvement?
The other area where the regulator has failed is more significant. The regulator has failed in his duty to ensure that all customers receive a reasonable deal, even within the same water district. I shall come to the particular problems of some districts later. We are now seeing a process of so-called rebalancing between customers that benefits the large industrial users at the expense of the domestic users.
As a result, the promise to hold down price increases this year has not been matched in individual customers' bills. The so-called re-balancing has cut the cost to the

139
major industrial user at the expense of the domestic user. That is not right within the terms originally laid out for the regulator to ensure fair treatment between customers.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that he was taking an economist's approach. Perhaps he was, but I do not think that he was taking a proper approach in terms of what Parliament intended. Ian Byatt states:
"Where, however, supplying water to a particular customer can be demonstrated to cost less, for example, where the customer provides their own on-site storage, then Ofwat would expect to see the introduction of different tariffs. We would want to see these tariffs published and made available to all customers in similar positions, rather than established by special agreements."
We must recognise that such a policy opens the way for differentiation between different domestic customers within one water company area. It opens the way for major housing authorities such as Plymouth city council in my region to put forward the basis of a contract with South West Water and say, "We have a large number of households which are cheap to supply, and we want to take advantage of those lower costs to deliver water more cheaply to our tenants."
That is now a possibility, and it appears from everything that the regulator has said that he regards it as acceptable. Those who represent rural areas where the costs are high regard such a policy as a threat. The regulator has done nothing to rule out that possibility. The regulatory system, and the fact that the regulator gives the matter an economic emphasis rather than a customer-based emphasis, makes it possible for rural customers to be hit hard.
The biggest problem with the regulatory system is that it cannot deliver a solution to the biggest problem, which hits my constituents and may yet hit others. Where a water area has particularly high costs, the bills of people living within it rise to a rate that they cannot afford. In the south-west water area, many bills are more than £600. Such bills often affect elderly people in rural areas, who have notionally expensive properties, but little income, and who cannot afford the bills. I am not talking simply about holding down price increases: such people cannot afford their present bills.
The regulator is unable to tackle the problem, because he is unable to create a fair system of payment across the country to meet the cost of the national clean-up system. I have spoken about that problem before in this place, so I shall not do so now.
That problem can be tackled only by Ministers—it falls to them to do so. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), will say today whether it is true that the Department of the Environment made a bid to the Treasury for funding to meet the problem. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is true that the Department of the Environment recognised the problem, but the Treasury said no. My constituents and those throughout the south-west want to know from where the money will come.
Those hon. Members who think that they have avoided the problem because they do not represent the south-west may find that, the next time that the regulations change, their areas will be hit. Those in East Anglia may be hit by regulations affecting water quality and the cost of
140
tackling farm run-off. We do not know where the problem will strike and we cannot expect customers to carry the burden.
In the past few weeks, Ministers have been directly responsible—an announcement was made just before Easter—for writing off one potential solution. If they will not invest more money, I must ask them to reconsider the problem. By announcing that they will stick with the old, outdated water rate system and allow water companies to continue with it, Ministers have refused one potential solution that might have helped solve the problem.
The old water rate system is out of date; the valuations cannot possibly be justified any longer. That was the justification for the introduction of the poll tax a long time ago, so we can imagine what the position is in 1995. Those out-of-date valuations are, in themselves, unfair, but they bring with them a system that allows no relief for those on low incomes and for those living alone. If we cannot help those living on low incomes and those living alone in regions such as the south-west, which has been hit by high charges, some people will be unable to pay their bills.
If we are not going to equalise the costs of the clean-up across the country, if we are not going to do something about the green dowry and look again at those problems, we must try to help those on the lowest incomes who are hardest hit by high bills. That point is made by the South West Water customers committees, citizens advice bureaux and many organisations that have to deal with people on the receiving end of the problem. That argument is even backed by the water companies, which say that the problem must be tackled.
While the problem is not tackled, and while Ministers allow old systems to exist that are inappropriate to the present position, pensioners will continue to struggle to pay bills that they cannot afford—it is not a political matter: the pensioners literally cannot afford to pay the bills. They receive state pensions, but are ineligible for help towards paying bills of £600 or £700. The only solution to that problem would be the introduction of a new water Bill in this place. We cannot look to the regulator to meet the crisis.
10.57 am
Mr. David Harris: The interesting feature of the debate has been the consensus across the Chamber. Much has been said by Opposition Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), with which I would not disagree, especially his concluding remarks. There is also, perhaps, a hidden consensus. That consensus may be shattered by the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but as I understand it, whether or not they liked it when privatisation was introduced, all parties in the House now recognise that privatisation is here to stay.
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on securing the debate, on the interest that she has taken in the subject and on her speech today. She made a moderate speech, but although she hankered back to nationalisation, and half seemed to suggest renationalisation, I know that that will not happen. Were the Labour party to gain office, it would not advocate that policy. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats are advocating it—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Truro is nodding in agreement.

141
The question is how to regulate the industry, and I am delighted that that is the focus of the debate. Regulation is essential, partly for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Truro. He was absolutely right to say that some of his constituents and some of the constituents of every south-west Member of Parliament cannot afford the increases that they have had to suffer—that is the right word—in recent years.
We can consider why those increases have occurred. Undoubtedly, the increases were partly due to the extra requirements placed on South West Water following privatisation.
We all agree that a very extensive capital programme should be put in place in the south-west. However, the extra requirements which have been applied, with good reason, to South West Water—partly by Europe and partly by the Government—have involved costs which were not taken into account when the green diary was fixed. The green dowry, which allocated some £260 million to South West Water, was simply not large enough, given the eventual scale and cost of its capital programme. That is the essence of the difficulty we face, and I am sorry that, even now, we do not have a proper solution to that problem.
Hon. Members from all parties who have constituencies in the south-west have badgered the Government, from the Prime Minister down, about the problem. We will continue to badger them until we see a satisfactory solution. Despite the harsh criticisms that have been expressed in the debate, I believe that a vital ally in the battle is the Director general of Water Services, Mr. Byatt. I do not know of a single Member of Parliament from the south-west who has not supported his action in setting the K limit for South West Water which will put a stop to the horrendous price increases, even though it will not tackle the differential that has built up already.
We all support him in his efforts, and many of us have made it known to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that we support the regulator in the appeal by South West Water against his determination of the K factor limit and the limitation on factor price increases. I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission must back the consumers of the south-west by rejecting South West Water's appeal.
The director general has shown that he has teeth, and he has used his powers properly in trying to limit price increases. South West Water should respond to the challenge of the new limits, as I do not believe that its case for future price increases stands up.
The South West Water top brass have done enormous damage—as have most privatised industries—by awarding themselves huge salary increases. Clearly, even if those increases had been halved or quartered, and even if the industry had set the kind of limits that we in the House have applied to our salaries, it would not have made a difference to the size of the water bills. However, the psychology involved is extremely important. Our constituents feel extremely angry when they weigh those salary increases against the percentage rise in their water bills.
I am pushed for time in the debate, and I know that Front-Bench Members wish to speak. In conclusion, I believe that the regulator has done a good job—I do not share the criticisms that other hon. Members have voiced
142
in the debate. I think that the regulator deserves our thanks, and I hope that he succeeds in his efforts on behalf of the hard-pressed consumers of South West Water.
11.3 am
Mr. Richard Burden: Before the recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and I raised some issues in an Adjournment debate which are extremely relevant to the debate this morning. Before Easter, we complained about the fact that a written parliamentary answer made a potentially fundamental statement about future charging mechanisms for water. That issue is a continuing cause of major public concern, and it is why regulation of the water industry is extremely important to many people up and down the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, regardless of who may technically control the water industry, the resource is owned by the public. Despite the fact that the public are very concerned about water metering and that there are major doubts as to whether it makes sense environmentally, logically or in terms of cost and equity, one man—the water regulator, Mr. Ian Byatt—has committed himself to the expansion of metering as the norm for water charging.
The Government have concurred with his view, despite the growing public outcry and despite the industry's reservations. The clear message in the Government's written answer is that water metering will become the charging norm, even though rateable values will be allowed to be used beyond the year 2000.
That is why we must examine the whole system of water regulation. We must decide whether vesting power in a regulator is synonymous with effective regulation. I do not wish to knock Ofwat employees; a great many very good and committed people work for that organisation, and they have performed some very effective work since privatisation. However, there have been major problems with the way in which the regulator has operated with regard to the issue of water charging systems and pricing.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to the investment programme. Whenever I speak about water, it is my aim to conclude my remarks without referring to the financial system that was set up at the time of privatisation, but that matter must be addressed.
When water was transferred technically into the private sector, it was treated like no other private sector industry: it was guaranteed a monopoly market, it was awarded a gift of £1 billion, and its debts were written off at a stroke. However, when the industry was in the public sector, it was told that it had to pay off its inherited debts, which led to a lack of investment in the industry in the last few years before privatisation, and to subsequent price increases.
The rules suddenly changed when privatisation occurred. Recent statements about the K factor have made the situation a little clearer with regard to the financial featherbedding of the industry upon privatisation, but it has not been sorted out. That underlines the need for a more democratic element in our regulatory system.
Much concern has been expressed up and down the country about the balance between the core business and the enterprise companies within the water industry. I am

143
not opposed to the water companies engaging in enterprise activities, but they should provide a service to the core business, not the other way around.
Time is short, so I shall conclude with some ideas about how to secure more effective regulation in the future. We need effective economic regulation of the industry in the areas of price and investment. Those issues must be treated much more democratically than has occurred in the past. The industry must be accountable, and it needs to link more successfully with other agencies.
The benefits system must mirror the real needs of people on low incomes. There must be effective environmental regulation of the industry, and hopefully the forthcoming Bill will make a start in that regard. There must be a much more effective consumer voice, and a separation of that voice from the official Ofwat structure.
In bringing the water industry to more democratic accountability, we do not intend to shackle management or to take away from professionals the tasks that they perform best. We are simply saying that, regardless of ownership, the water industry provides a public service, and it must be run in a way that is accountable to the public and in a way that recognises their economic, social and environmental needs.
11.8 am
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on pushing for this debate on a subject which she has pursued vigorously and considerably. The role of the regulator in the water industry is probably more important than in any other privatised industry. Water is an absolute monopoly, and we do not have the choices in water supply which we have in electricity, gas and telephones. It is also an essential service, on which we all depend.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a point about investment, and we must welcome the way in which he approached the matter. I hope that the Government and the regulator take a similar approach. It is wrong that so much long-term capital expenditure is funded from revenue. When hon. Members met the Water Services Association recently, we heard that 80 per cent of long-term capital investment is made from revenue. That is totally wrong, and I hope that the Minister will change that.
On the subject of water metering, it is surprising that it was not the regulator Mr. Byatt—who says he is neutral on the subject, although everyone knows that he is committed to metering—who issued a warning when the Secretary of State made his announcement earlier this month about relying on rateable values until metering could be introduced in the longer term.
It was the Water Services Association and the Water Companies Association jointly which warned against compulsory metering. They said:
"They hope this doesn't mean the thin end of the wedge towards universal compulsory metering for all domestic customers. We would certainly fight that on behalf of our customers very hard."
It should be the regulator who is doing that, not the industry; I wlecome what the companies are doing.
144
A survey of Members of Parliament was carried out by Access Opinions on the role of the regulators and executive pay. In response to a question on the regulators of privatised utilities needing
"to strike a balance between the interests of shareholders, customers and staff',
90 per cent. of Members thought that customers were the most important. Even among Conservative Members, that figure was 82 per cent, while 98 per cent. of Labour Members said consumers. In response to a question asking whether Members believed that Ofwat was adequately protecting the needs of consumers, 36 per cent. thought Ofwat's response was inadequate, 19 per cent. thought it was very inadequate, and 6 per cent. had no opinion.
When the same question was asked about shareholders, the answers went the opposite way, with 58 per cent. answering that they thought Ofwat dealt with shareholders adequately, and 26 per cent. answering "very adequately".
I wish to refer the north-west customer services committee of Ofwat, which tends to do good job. It has limited resources, and I would like to see those resources increased. Mr. Anthony Goldstone, the committee chairman, refereed to disconnections, and said:
"One disconnection is one too many".
The regulator and the Government must address that matter. I would suggest time that Ministers ought to discuss the matter with the Department of Social Security to try to come to an arrangement.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend and Front-Bench Members may like to know that members of the all-party group went to see the Minister for Social Security, and we are hopefully making some progress on that matter.
Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and there may be an opportunity for liaison on deductions from income support. I believe that that would help that problem.
11.13 am
Mr. Brian Wilson: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), not only on securing this debate, but on her outstanding contribution during the past few years in ensuring that proper scrutiny is made of this subject through her activities in the all-party group.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) spoke of the "enormous consensus" in the House on the issue, but I am sure that he would expect me to take some exception to that. Some historic facts make it impossible for there to be consensus, a major one of which is that Conservative Members voted for privatisation and—by association—for the regime under which so many people are suffering. Opposition Members voted against it, which means that there can be no consensus.
We are in disagreement about what has been done to the industry, and the people we represent are on our side of the argument. We have the overwhelming support of the British people, which Conservative Members chose to ignore. Now—when they are facing the electoral consequences—it is a little late to bleat about the "enormous consensus".
I approach the subject from the regulatory side of the argument, and I also speak with slight trepidation, as a Member representing a Scottish constituency in what has

145
clearly so far been an English and Welsh debate. That is because we in Scotland succeeded—where, I suggest, the hon. Member for St. Ives and others may now regret that they failed—in stopping the Scottish water industry being privatised.
Unfortunately, the industry will—for a brief period—be under the control of quangos. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rather eccentrically described members of quangos as "people put there on the basis of merit". That is a new description. The Scottish industry will be in the control of quangos for a short term, until it returns to full local authority control.
Unfortunately, we have not had the same success in England and Wales, and we must now try to improve the regulatory system to make it work—as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said—on behalf of the consumers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough asked whether the Government or the regulator was responsible for what is going on, but I think that it is two sides of the same coin. The regulators are not mystical people dropped from heaven into their positions, but people appointed by the Government to do the work of the Government and to pursue the policies which are inherent in the privatisation programme. In general, that is what the regulators have done, and that is why we are determined that there must be a complete overhaul of the regulatory system, particularly with regard to accountability.
The regulator has allowed massive price increases for consumers in England and Wales, and he is not acting on their behalf. He is, instead, pursuing the policies and logic of the Government. The electorate make no distinction between the Government and the regulator in this area, and they hold the Government and the Tory party responsible for what has happened to water prices over the past few years.
The true scandal was neatly summarised in a recent article in the Financial Times, which gave a recent history of the water industry. The article said:
"The water companies were sold initially for £6.5 billion, with more than £5 billion of debt written off by the government. Yesterday. their market value was more than £12 billion, and shareholders have received more than £2 billion in dividends since privatisation.
Customers, meanwhile, have faced large increases in their water bills, to pay for improvements in water quality, better sewage treatment and cleaning up beaches and rivers. On average, household bills have risen more than 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation for every year since privatisation."
On the basis of that potted history, there can be no consensus. It is an absolute scandal which is increasingly being hung around the necks of the people who voted for privatisation in the first place.
The Times summed it up in these terms:
"While customers squealed, shareholders were laughing."
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Hear, hear.
Mr.Wilson: That may be the epitaph on the grave of the Tory Government, and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) says, "Hear, hear."
The article continued:
"By 1993, Northumbrian was making operating profits of £69.7 million on turnover of £239 million. One pound of profit in every four was being doled out to shareholders. The rest was rapidly inflating the value of their company. A similar pattern could be seen elsewhere."
146
I can assure that hon. Member for St. Ives that there is no consensus on that, either.
Recently, there was a flurry of activity, with a more stringent pricing regime due to come in on 1 April. North West Water suddenly discovered that it had £180 million to distribute to customers and shareholders over the next five years. Immediately, the loyal Mr. Byatt came to the company's aid, and declared that companies
"which share the efficiencies made in their investment programmes will face less demanding price controls in future reviews."
That was a quote from the Financial Times.
On that point, Kevin Lapwood of Smith NewCourt declared that Ian Byatt's declaration
"has unshackled the sector … Investors and the companies have been worried about how they could get the benefits of better financial performance out to shareholders after the electricity experience. They can now promise substantially better than expected dividend growth with the regulator's approval."
The sinners among Conservative Members who have repented and who claim to be enormously worried, but say that the new pricing regime will see things all right and that Mr. Byatt is doing a tremendously good job, are being a little over-optimistic.
Disconnections are an evil, wicked and totally unnecessary act. To leave people without water in their homes is not something for which any civilised society should be responsible. Scotland is not the wealthiest part of the United Kingdom. People there living in poverty have difficulty meeting their water bills, yet it is legally impossible for anyone's water supply in Scotland to be disconnected. Somehow, the system has managed to survive a century and more. If that can happen in Scotland, it can happen in the rest of the UK. Disconnections should be made illegal.
If any Conservative Member seeking consensus or the Minister can stand up and make a moral case for disconnection, I would be interested to hear it. There is no need for disconnections. There are other means of recovery. The marginal loss sustained by non-recovery is one that the water industry can well bear.
The idea of companies for which Conservative Members are mouthpieces indiscriminately denying water to homes occupied by the elderly, small children or the sick strikes me as completely unacceptable in a civilised society. That does not happen in Scotland, and it should not legally be done in England. Why does not one Conservative Member have the guts to say that disconnections should not be legal in England and Wales?
Metering is only another form of disconnection, because if people do not have money to put in the meter, water companies do not even have to dirty their hands physically disconnecting water supplies. Metering is another assault on the poor, leading to further hardship and misery for people who cannot afford the excessive charges caused by privatisation and the lax regulatory regime, for which every Conservative Member voted. There is no consensus. The whole thing is a scandal and a scam, and one reason that the Tories will be finally judged next month, and then in a general election.
11.22 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): This has been an interesting and broad debate. My difficulty is to answer in seven minutes many of the points that were made.

147
I was intrigued by some made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and it was also interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) joined the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in leaning on South West Water. I am sure the company will note that with some concern.
The most interesting contribution was that of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), which re-emphasised Labour's preoccupation with regulation to the point of strangulation—which is what we shall be in for if the electorate ever make the mistake of allowing Labour back in.
Privatisation has succeeded in its main objectives of allowing the water industry access to private finance and to enable a much higher level of investment than was possible—as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept—when the industry was in the public sector and subject to public expenditure restraints. Privatisation has removed the water industry's dependence on the Exchequer, and it has enabled a much increased investment programme of around £3 billion each year since 1989, dramatically to improve drinking water quality and the water environment, as well as allowing the renewal and necessary maintenance of infrastructure.
In England and Wales, in 1993, 99 per cent. of 3.5 million tests met drinking water quality standards, and between 1990 and 1993 there was a net upgrading in quality of nearly 16 per cent. of river length—the proportion of rivers in the highest-quality class increased and the proportion in the lower classes dramatically reduced. The percentage of the population at risk of water shortages, hosepipe bans and low pressure have all been dramatically reduced.
Since 1990–91—the first full year of privatisation—the water industry has invested about £15 billion. The new price limits set by the Director General of Water Services last summer allow for a further £24 billion capital expenditure programme over the next 10 years—£11 billion for quality improvements, £12 billion for maintenance of assets and £1 billion for additional water resources and measures to reduce the risk of flooding from sewers.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Paul Beresford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I decline, but I have only five and a half minutes left in which to reply.
That large-scale investment programme is necessary to make good the years of under-investment before privatisation—we heard the dramatic example from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham of the sewage build-up in one Government office. The industry is now engaged on nothing less than a massive modernisation of the water and sewerage infrastructure, which will ensure that it complies with much higher European and national standards. The same level of investment would have been required had the industry remained in the public sector, but without the availability of private sector finance.
Much has been made of charges. Improvements in water and sewerage services and in the environment are not cost-free—somebody must pay. Charges have had to rise to help pay for investment, but the rate of increase in
148
charges is much less than in previous years, and for the next five years will be significantly below the increase originally set at the time of privatisation. In his first periodic review of water price limits last summer, the director general set new, tighter limits to apply to charge increases from 1 April this year and for subsequent years.
The periodic review was the regulator's first opportunity to make a fundamental review of companies' costs and efficiency, and to address issues such as the cost of capital. He decided that companies would now be expected to make a lower rate of return on investment and to reduce their costs through greater efficiency. As a result, he was able to reduce price rises over the next five years from the average of 4 per cent. a year in real terms set in 1989 to an average of 1.5 per cent.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Paul Beresford: I have only three and a half minutes left.
In the full 10–year period from 1995 to 2005 covered by the director general's review, the average increase in charges is limited to less than 1 per cent. a year. Within those average figures, there are, of course, differential rates of price increase for different companies and for different groups of customers, to reflect the cost of the services provided. The price limit that the regulator sets each company applies to the average increase in tariffs.
Despite claims of a perceived growth in water debt and disconnections, they fell by 12 per cent. in 1992–93, by 33 per cent. in 1993–94 and by a further 7 per cent. in the first six months of the following year. Of the 2 million households identified by the Policy Studies Institute report as experiencing water debt last year, fewer than 0.6 per cent. experienced disconnection.
That can normally only take place after a length procedure, in which the water company has obtained a county court judgment that remains unpaid. The power to disconnect supply for non-payment of charges must remain as a last resort, particularly in respect of people who can pay but will not pay. We are not talking of the individuals who were so dramatically portrayed earlier.
Mr.Wilson: How does the Minister distinguish?
Sir Paul Beresford: It is for the courts to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently made a policy statement about the basis of charging for water in England and Wales. The Government believe that, in the long term, metering is the best basis for paying for water in many circumstances. It is fair and equitable, in that it relates charges directly to the amount of water used and gives customers some control over their bills.
Payment by amount used encourages customers to use only the water they need which, particularly in dry areas, and it is important in developing patterns of water use that are sustainable in the longer term. With lower consumption, the need for costly capital schemes to develop new water resources may be deferred or avoided. Metering also helps in the detection and control of leakage from the distribution system, so it can play an important role in water conservation.
It is with regret that I recognise that I shall have to answer specific questions by writing to individual Members.

149
Contrary to the impression that Opposition Members have attempted to give, the privatisation of the water industry and the system of regulation that we have established have been both successful and effective. These developments have enabled a huge programme of capital investment to take place. They have brought improvements in water treatment, sewerage and sewage treatment.
As a result, we are achieving higher standards of drinking water quality, as well as higher standards in the water environment. The regulator has ensured that the rate of increase in charges will be much less than in previous years, while the levels of service provided by the water companies will continue, as over the past few years, dramatically to improve. The companies are becoming more efficient. Some of them are already announcing rebates and reductions in customers' bills. These are all developments to be welcomed and encouraged.

Euthanasia
11.30 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have initiated this timely debate because I fear that two fundamental principles are being undermined, which the House must take the earliest opportunity to reinforce.
First, the House is surely the guardian of the rights of the individual citizen. It is the protector of the vulnerable, of the weak and of those who are unable to speak for themselves. It is here and nowhere else that laws upholding that principle should be decided.
Secondly, since the time of Hippocrates, patients have been able to look to their doctors to uphold the highest ethical standards; to do all within their power to protect the patient's health and well-being and never to take steps either of commission or of omission to harm patients, let alone intentionally to bring about their death.
The two basic principles that I have outlined are now under threat. I believe that the primacy of this place is being challenged and that the special relationship between doctor and patient, and the wider contract between individuals and society as a whole, is in desperate jeopardy. The threat to both principles is posed by the co-ordinated thrust being made to bring about the decriminalisation of euthanasia.
It is clear from the attendance in the Chamber that many hon. Members on both sides and in all parties share what I can describe only as my profound concern about recent developments. I have no doubt that many of them will seek to take this opportunity to put on record the reasons for their concern.
I am especially delighted to see in her place the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I am also delighted to see that a long-serving member of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), is in her place. Also present is another long-serving member of the Select Committee and its predecessor Committees, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The hon. Gentleman has served with me on the Select Committee and its predecessor Committees for many years. I see also in his place a Member who led the Select Committee on Social Services with great distinction, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I know that he feels as strongly as I do on this subject.
I shall take the opportunity to explain why I and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of those who have considered these issues carefully, have reached the inescapable conclusion that the decriminalisation of euthanasia is as unnecessary as it is unethical and repugnant.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument that euthanasia is, in the end, the killing of people? That is against God's law. I recognise how hard it must be at times for individuals to deal with these matters, but we must all die in God's time, not in man's time. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr. Winterton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's views. Euthanasia is against God's law and against the law of the United Kingdom. The law says that it is wrong intentionally to kill a person. I fully support my hon. Friend's views.

151
The Law Commission recently produced a report on mental incapacity, which dealt with the issues that I have raised. It is being considered by an interdepartmental working party established by the Lord Chancellor. Earlier this month the British Medical Association published a document entitled "Advance Statements about Medical Treatment". In my view, parts of that document do not reflect the views of the majority of doctors. If those parts are taken with the sections of the Law Commission's report which call for legally binding living wills, the door to euthanasia could be opened wide.
Mr. Peter Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that his contention that the majority of doctors may not support the BMA's recent document is borne out by a letter that I received from two doctors at the Worcester Royal Infirmary Trust, who expressed strong reservations about the BMA's recent document? They told me that, at a meeting on 10 April, those reservations were widely shared. The two doctors are concerned about the attempt to introduce euthanasia through the back door without the sanction of Parliament.
Mr.Winterton: I can only say that the views expressed to my hon. Friend by doctors in his constituency reflect the views expressed to me by doctors in my constituency and elsewhere. It is worth mentioning that the working party set up by the BMA, which has produced rules and guidelines, does not, I believe, represent the policy of the BMA as a whole. It is also worth noting that only five of the 16 members of the steering committee or working party are doctors. The steering committee was composed mainly of lawyers and, dare I say it, ethical advisers.
It is time that the House pointed out a few basic and inescapable facts to that small, unrepresentative and essentially unaccountable clique of lawyers and doctors and reminded them that any move towards euthanasia has been made redundant by our world-leading pioneering of the hospice movement, with which I am proud to be involved in my capacity as a vice-president of the East Cheshire hospice in Macclesfield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—I am delighted to note that she has just taken her place—and I jointly opened in the presence of the Lord Bishop of Chester, Michael Baughen. Any move towards euthanasia has also been made redundant by tremendous developments in palliative medicine, and great strides in geriatric services.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take a lesson from what has happened in Holland? If we take one step down this road, there is no stopping the rush to euthanasia. We must be warned by Holland's example.
Mr. Winterton: The House should note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. She is a long-serving Member. I intend to take up the example of the Netherlands. We must be careful before any decisions are taken to move down the path to any form of euthanasia.
I remind those doctors and lawyers and their allies in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society that the prohibition of intentional killing is the very cornerstone of our civilised society and of our law. The role of the doctor is to cure and, if that is not possible, to care for his patients. To permit doctors intentionally to kill would be a dramatic
152
change which I believe—I think that my views are widely shared—would discredit the medical profession and undermine the fabric of our society.
No one is saying that the medical profession should strive at all costs, even officiously, to keep alive patients who are dying. Nor is anyone saying that drugs such as painkillers should not be prescribed if one of their side effects is to hasten death, provided that the doctor's motive is pain relief and not the death of the patient.
Those are delicate and difficult issues, which the BMA and the Law Commission have failed fully to understand and on which in their reports they have badly let down not only their own professional, medical and legal communities but society as a whole. If euthanasia were to be decriminalised, the elderly, the infirm and the chronically. sick would immediately be under both real and perceived pressure to request it to end what is portrayed as the burden that they place on the shoulders of relatives and society as a whole.
What starts as voluntary euthanasia would rapidly become encouraged euthanasia, which would then become pressurised euthanasia and then, inevitably, compulsory euthanasia. I will hear no calls in the House today of "death with dignity" or of a "blessed relief from an existence of unbearable pain." Outstanding advances in symptom control and pain relief enable hospice doctors and others to relieve pain in the overwhelming majority of cases.
What the disorientated elderly require is love. How often is that word used in the Chamber? They want compassion. They want understanding. They want support. They do not want death. What the incurable cancer sufferer needs is nursing care, pain relief and, what is more, emotional relief and help with an uncertain but approaching death, and the impact that it will have on loved ones. What the AIDS victim needs is medical care, nursing care, psychological care, and to spend the last of his or her days in the warmth of Christian compassion. What all those groups and many more require is not the indignity of death at the hands of their doctors, but the knowledge that, until the moment of their natural death, they remain valued members of society—loved, cared for and respected for their inherent individual worth.
The heroes and heroines who care for the incurably ill, the psychogeriatric and the severely handicapped in our society today, are legion. We all know that fact as Members of Parliament. They are too numerous to list, but they include all those involved in the hospice movement, those who provide hospice care at home, the Macmillan nurses, the members of the British Geriatric Association, which has been so supportive of what I am seeking to achieve today, and the tens of thousands of doctors and nurses who daily dedicate their lives to care, in their commitment to those who are suffering from terminal or aging illnesses. I put a rhetorical question to the House: does the commitment of those professional caring people count for nothing? Are we to go down the path to mercy killing, as it has come to be known?
It might be helpful if I remind the House that parliamentary concern on these matters led to the establishment in another place of a Select Committee on Medical Ethics to consider the very matters that we are debating today. The appointment of Lord Walton to the chairmanship of that Committee—an individual who was already openly associated with campaigns to promote euthanasia—as well as other members, such as Baroness

153
Warnock, who were already publicly on record as supporters of euthanasia, did little to inspire confidence in the Committee's impartiality. Indeed, the majority of its members were believed to be supporters of a liberalising of the law in this area.
Yet, after 12 months of hearing expert evidence, and deliberating carefully on these important issues—the Committee had undertaken one of the most thorough and well-researched reports on euthanasia that this country had ever seen—and despite the preconceived ideas of many of its members, I am pleased to tell the House that its report was unanimous in its rejection of euthanasia. I commend it to hon. Members as essential reading for those who would understand these sensitive and difficult issues.
Something must also be said at this stage about the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the irresponsible and, dare I say it, devious manner in which it has presented and propagated its views. Naturally, as a Member of the House, I would champion the right of the VES and its supporters to air their views, even though personally I fundamentally disagree with them, but it is worth highlighting the fact that the VES regularly quotes a national opinion poll in which it claims that 79 per cent. of people in this country support voluntary euthanasia. If it is not an unparliamentary word—I hope that it is not—I would reject that claim as twaddle, and observe that the claim was heavily criticised by the House of Lords Select Committee and later by an editorial in The Lancet as thoroughly misleading. The question asked was:
"Would you like medical assistance to a peaceful death?"
I am surprised that 100 per cent. of respondents did not say yes to such a loaded question.
If we want to see where the euthanasia road, which the VES, the Law Commission and the BMA would have us follow, is taking us, I would simply point to the tragic situation that has arisen in the Netherlands. There, literally thousands of patients die every year through the deliberate act or omission of their doctors. It is now accepted that many of those patients have neither requested nor condoned the ending of their lives. That is a fact. That is why we must highlight the dangers of treading the path that leads to euthanasia.
To those who say that euthanasia is practised only at the request of patients in the most serious of cases, I would draw to their attention the revelation in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal that euthanasia has been sanctioned in the Netherlands for patients who simply have the misfortune to suffer from depression, and that doctors in the Netherlands are now admitting to euthanasia of new-born handicapped babies, who could not possibly have requested the ending of their own lives. That is the reality of going down the path to euthanasia.
To those who deny the validity of that comparison or who doubt that the authority of the House is being usurped by the campaigners for euthanasia, I repeat the words of John Oliver of the VES in the February edition of GQ magazine, commenting on his views on changes in the law in an article entitled, "Death on Demand":
"I doubt that politicians will have the balls to change it themselves … Instead change will probably come in the form of judicial review, with the law being reshaped in the courts—exactly as it was in Holland in fact."
Let me deal now with the issue of advanced directives, or "living wills" as they are sometimes called. It is, and always has been, good medical practice for doctors to
154
discuss with their patients the possible outcomes of their condition, the side effects of possible treatments of that condition, and the problems which might be encountered in the future. It is equally good medical practice for the views and opinions of the patient expressed in such discussions to be noted and taken into account by the doctor in the future management of a particular case. To suggest, however, that such opinions should be binding upon the doctor is as much an affront to the doctor's professionalism as it is a denial of proper care to the patient.
It is an approach fraught with desperate dangers. A patient having signed away access to treatments developed at a later date would deny himself or herself, probably unintentionally, the benefits of any progress in medical science. A patient in relatively good health looking forward to a future of uncertainty and eventual dependence on others might be prompted by vanity, pride or concern, among many other understandable emotions, to sign away his or her right to life, without any real knowledge of the emotions that might be felt or would be felt when that stage in the condition was reached.
A patient—this could happen so easily—surrounded by greedy or selfish relatives might feel pressured into signing, quite literally, his own death warrant. The cost pressures of the new nursing and residential care arrangements under the community care programme can only exacerbate those very real dangers which face people and their families today.
As Peter Millard, the Eleanor Peel professor of geriatric medicine at St. George's hospital medical school, in a letter to me welcoming this debate, said:
"The major flaw with advance directives is that the concept is based upon single diseases with known outcomes. Whereas medical practice in old age is based on a complex interweave of biological psychological and social factors complicated by multiple pathology. Mismanagement does not necessarily cause death, rather it leads to the bed-bound state. Old people do not want to be a burden and often when sick say they think they would be better off out of it. Advance directives based on oral and written evidence would lead to neglect."
That is what a well-known doctor in geriatric care believes could happen if we trespass down the path to euthanasia and living wills. Is that the situation that the Law Commission and the British Medical Association wish to create?
There are always those, of course, who cite hard cases in support of their arguments. In this debate, the case of Tony Bland, the victim of the Hillsborough disaster, is one such example. It is also a case which many commentators misunderstood by thinking that it was simply a matter of switching off a life support machine. But that was not the case. Tony Bland was not on a life support machine. He was breathing unaided and was certainly not about to die. Furthermore, he never requested euthanasia. The question which the court was asked to decide was whether food and water could be withdrawn from a patient who was neither dying nor in the final stages of a terminal disease.
The Law Lords decided, in their wisdom—wrongly, I believe—that food and water could be so withdrawn without any recourse to Parliament for authority for that ruling. Therefore, Tony Bland was deliberately killed through lack of hydration and nutrition.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Quite apart from the fact that bad law seems to have been made on a single

155
hard case, there is another angle to this which was not widely explored in the public domain. Tony Bland contracted septicemia earlier on. As the Guild of Catholic Doctors remarked, treatment for that septicemia could have been regarded as over-burdensome. Therefore, this case need never have come to the sort of invidious decisions that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Winterton: I am coming to that very point now. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising it, because it highlights the part of the case that I am seeking to present.
That case causes grave concern. Can we, as a civilised society, sanction the starving to death of a patient? I am not, equally, arguing that Tony Bland's doctors should have officiously striven to keep him alive. It might, in certain circumstances, have been ethical to withdraw treatment for infections which he contracted during the course of his condition, and he might have died as a result of that course of action. But that is not euthanasia: it is a judgment about the extent to which doctors should strive to keep alive, not about whether it could ever be ethical to withhold food and nutrition intentionally to kill the patient.
Mr. Frank Field: Does not the case of Tony Bland illustrate the two sides to the argument? The hon. Member has made a powerful case that we should be mindful of allowing society to slip into a frame of mind in which we dispose of people who are costly or inconvenient to us. But do not the horrors that Tony Bland's parents had to go through illustrate the other side of the argument? If medics treating someone are fearful that they will be reported for having allowed the patient to die, they take the Tony Bland line.
I very much agree with the view of the doctor on the "Today" programme, who was somehow billed as a pro-life doctor—as though all doctors were not pro-life—who said that twice Tony Bland had pneumonia, and twice he should not have been treated, allowing death to take place that way. I agree that we have the worst of all possible outcomes with the court judgment on the Tony Bland case, but surely it illustrates the other side of the picture: we do not want groups of people rushing around hospitals reporting other people because they may have caused someone's death. If that happens, we shall have the Bland episode all over again.
Mr. Winterton: I do not think that any Member of the House could disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I had the honour, pleasure and privilege to meet Tony Bland's parents and one of the doctors treating him after a Granada programme broadcast from Manchester. Following that meeting, I made representations to the Home Secretary about precisely what the law was.
It is not until one is faced with the sort of case to which the hon. Gentleman and I have referred that one understands the great problems. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Tony Bland case does, to an extent, expose both sides of the argument. But what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said was right. Prior to any application being made to the High Court, Tony Bland suffered not only septicemia but a urinary fistula, and if an aggressive treatment had not been adopted to overcome those problems, he would have died naturally.
156
While I am putting the case against euthanasia, I must also say that I believe that that is what should have happened. There should not have been aggressive treatment to cure that septicemia because, like pneumonia, septicemia is an illness which strikes people in such a condition. It is wrong to use all the technology that medicine now has to keep someone alive in such circumstances.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Winterton: I give way to my hon. and conjugal friend.
Mrs. Winterton: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given way to me and I shall be brief. Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Tony Bland case shows that where lawyers are involved there are always great problems? The life of Tony Bland was lengthened because of legal interventions. He was not allowed to die naturally with dignity because of the case in which he had been involved, to which the Hillsborough disaster gave rise. Therefore, it was an extraordinary case in its own right and should not be taken literally. Many people got the wrong end of the stick about it.
Mr. Winterton: I can only say, not wishing to protract my speech much longer, that my hon. Friend has made a good point which should be noted by the House.
Mr. Clive Soley: How would the hon. Gentleman extend the argument? If a person who was fully conscious and facing death refused treatment, does the hon. Gentleman think that treatment should be administered without that person's consent?
Mr. Winterton: Personally, I do, because I believe that the decision about treatment should lie with those who are treating the individual. It is a doctor's duty to represent the best health interests of the individual and to ensure their well-being as far as possible.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to say that, in addition to the right to live, which is enshrined in the United Nations charter and in the constitutions of many countries, there is also the equivalent of a right to die. In fact, there is no such right to die. Prior to the Suicide Act 1961, it was illegal for people to commit suicide. Moreover, it is still illegal to assist people in committing suicide; it is criminal to do so, and that is right.
I conclude my introduction to today's debate by reminding the House that such was the strength of opposition to euthanasia that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), whom I am glad to see in his place, withdrew his ten-minute Bill some time ago once he realised how resoundingly it would be defeated, and that instead the House gave leave, without Division, to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to introduce a Bill which would reaffirm our opposition to euthanasia, commend the work of the hospice movement, make clear the circumstances in which food and water could and could not be withdrawn, and thus make it clear that the intentional killing of patients by action or omission is contrary to the will of the House.
Any change in the law must be considered and enacted by Parliament—by this House, and by the House of Lords—rather than being dictated by the courts, the lawyers or even the medical profession. Those who, like

157
me, care about the sanctity of human life and the dignity of patients stand at an important crossroads. They can accept euthanasia as inevitable—as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and its supporters in the Law Commission and the British Medical Association would have them do or they can join me in rising to the challenge, and drawing a line beyond which we will not allow society to go. Developments in the hospice movement, and in palliative and geriatric medicine, make euthanasia an out-dated and redundant concept that has no place in a civilised and caring society. Now is the time to call a halt to the slide.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to speak. I make a plea for succinct speeches.
12 noon
Mr. Frank Field: I am glad to have been called, and to follow the speech of my hon. Friend—as I shall call him this morning—the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I disagree with none of his substantive points, but I should like to garnish his speech, as it were, with a couple of nuances.
Euthanasia's recruiting sergeant is the simple and awful fact that relatives of many of us and our constituents have died in awful conditions, suffering dreadful pain over long periods. Because the methods of treatment applied in hospices are not universal—and not wanted by some patients—such people will continue to experience agonising deaths, and that will add force to the euthanasia debate. I do not think that we should dispose of that side of the argument.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Has not the medical profession a huge part to play? Should not medical education and training, and the advice available to general practitioners, show the way forward and enable the right care to be provided?
Mr. Field: Indeed. I hope that the Government will accept the truth of that. Lord McColl, who works as a doctor in one of London's hospices, has advanced an effective argument that meets the hon. Lady's point. In the hospice where he works, patients come and go—as they now do in all hospices—and most control their own drug supplies: any patient who wished to commit suicide could easily do so simply by increasing the dosage. Throughout the time during which Lord McColl has worked in that hospice, however, not one has done so, because the hospice has been successful in controlling pain.
Let me sound two notes of caution in regard to the legalisation of euthanasia. First, there is the danger of creating a climate of opinion that will lead initially to the acceptability of euthanasia and a change in the law, and subsequently—a worse development—to a feeling on the part of old people in particular that they have a duty to volunteer. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield pointed out, according to evidence obtained some years ago more than 1,000 people in Holland have been killed without their permission.
In a briefing given to some of us, the Dutch ambassador disputed that evidence. It is possible that he does not understand what is going on in his country as well as
158
some of those involved in the debate—which underlines the importance of obtaining the most up-to-date and accurate information available.
Some 50 per cent. of the NHS budget is now spent on elderly people, and there will be increasing pressure for its control. It cannot be a fluke that the euthanasia debate has flared up again at a time when most European Governments face rising hospital bills for old people. The argument has an economic dimension. I fear that people may eventually volunteer to be killed because they feel that they are a burden.
Our parents considered it their duty to look after their own parents; now, it is increasingly felt that elderly parents should not live with their offspring. I wonder whether those elderly people are being entirely honest when they say that they prefer independence. Perhaps they feel that they would impose a burden on their families—and, if they already feel that when they are still able-bodied, although needing some care, what must the pressures be in the final years and months of their lives?
My second note of caution concerns "living wills". One of my best friends was known to the country as Barbara Wootton, and known in the other place as Lady Wootton. She was one of the most intelligent people of the century; for most of her life she was an atheist, but—being ultra-rational—as death approached she became agnostic.
When the debate about euthanasia and the role of Exit was last doing the rounds, I visited Barbara at her barn outside Dorking. She told me calmly that she had joined Exit. Shortly before that, a woman had allowed an Exit representative to look after her mother; hearing a loud noise, she had rushed into the room and found a man wearing a woolly hat and eating banana sandwiches while her mother was suffocating, with a plastic bag over her head. The daughter ripped the bag off.
I joked with Barbara, saying, "You cannot be put away by a man in a woolly hat who will eat banana sandwiches and put a bag over your head." Some time later, she said, "I have friends in the Lords who know about these things. They have given me the knock-out pills."
The next stage in this sad tale was when, during my regular Wednesday afternoon tea with Barbara, she said, "Do you know, Frank, last week I heard part of my brain collapse. It was like water moving down past my left ear." It was clear then that, although she was hyper-intelligent, decline had set in.
After one of the summer breaks, Barbara went into a geriatric hospital, where I visited her. For part of the time she was as bright as ever, but, notwithstanding all the care provided by the hospital, she told me, "I am keeping a list in my handbag of the differences between this place and prison, and so far it is not very long." I thought that she would ask me to go to her home and fetch the pills that were there to kill her.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield has described the consequences of such an action; although I disagree personally with suicide, and hope that I would hold to that view, I feel that others should be able to exercise the right. It was noticeable, however, that, however difficult things became for Barbara in those last months of her life, she fought to live with unbelievable determination. She did not ask for the drugs that would have killed her.
I do not suggest that everyone would find himself or herself in the same position, but I do issue a warning about "living wills". Had they been in vogue at that time,

159
Barbara would certainly have written one. However, when it came to the crunch, when she was not as in control as she had been previously, other forces took control of Barbara and she did not want the end of her life to be brought forward unnaturally. That is my second cautionary tale.
The last point that I wish to make in this important debate again underlines some of the themes adopted by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. One of the gains we want from the debate is not just the learning process but what we hope will be imparted to and induced into the medical profession. The Tony Bland example illustrates the different ways that the debate flows.
We know that euthanasia is practised in this country. Lord Dawson, who was King George V's doctor, said quite openly that he had killed the King. He did so because he was anxious that The Times should carry the story exclusively, rather than it being carried in other newspapers that he thought were a rather minor concern. He felt that something so important should be reported in what he thought to be the premier newspaper. If it is possible in this country for a doctor to do that and quite openly say that he has done that, for no prosecution to follow, and for that to happen in the 1930s, it underlines the important point that, quite clearly, some doctors are perhaps too happy about ending people's lives, whereas other doctors are fearful of doing so.
I hope that this debate does not imply that we are suggesting that people must be kept alive at all costs, whatever that does to them. However, there is a whole process relating to dying well in this country which, because of our hospice movement, sets us apart from most other countries in Europe and, perhaps, the world. We want to draw attention to that and we want to support the hospice movement. We only wish that the Government would be slightly more generous in their allocation of funds to that movement.
We must realise that, in all the key areas of our lives, although it is easy to stand up and say that there are black and white decisions to be made, most of us know that we are in a dreadful grey area.
12.11 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House today. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and also of the all-party hospice group, I should like to say that this subject has occupied my mind for some time. It is apparent that, with the continued advance of medical science and the subsequent rise in life expectancy, there is a growing concern among many about the medical treatment and intervention that they would or would not like to receive if they were faced with a degenerative condition or a terminal illness.
That concern has naturally led to further discussion of the practice of euthanasia through the publication of articles and the showing or broadcasting of television and radio programmes. My attention, like that of many others, was drawn to the BBC2 screening of the Dutch television programme "Death on Request". I can tell those hon. Members who were unable to see the programme that the
160
film's theme was to trace the final months of a Dutch patient who was dying of motor neurone disease and was suffering terribly. His doctor said that there was nothing that he could do for him and that he was likely to suffocate to death. The final stages of the film showed the Dutch doctor administering a lethal injection to his patient.
The debate surrounding the programme was intense, with some describing it as a sensitively created programme, while the review by a senior geriatrician in the British Medical Journal described it as "propaganda". Watching the programme, I was concerned by some of the glaring inaccuracies of the film and even more so by the false impression that the feature created about the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
First, the doctor stated clearly in the film that the patient would die of suffocation—a statement which caused considerable concern among motor neurone sufferers in this country. However, having discussed the matter personally with Dr. Nigel Sykes, one of the United Kingdom's leading experts in the care of those dying from motor neurone disease, I understand that, of the 300 motor neurone patients cared for at St. Christopher's hospice, none has died of suffocation.
Secondly, the doctor claimed during the film that where euthanasia was available, patients tended to live longer. However, no evidence was given to support that bold statement. Finally, the film failed to explain why no pain relief was given to the patient and why there were no home nurses or hospice support teams to help the wife.
Of more concern than the inaccuracies was the impression the film gave that the Dutch have effectively legalised euthanasia with no negative side effects, save the trauma of the doctor. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a result, I tabled early-day motion 740, which well over 100 hon. Members kindly supported. It criticised the BBC for failing to give a "complete and balanced" account of euthanasia in the Netherlands. My tabling of the motion caused a particularly strong reaction from the Dutch ambassador. However, the facts should give him some cause for alarm.
I was not the only one to notice the glaring shortcomings of the BBC in showing the programme without adequate prime time for comment and reaction. A letter to The Times the day after the programme was shown, signed by, among others, Dr. Twycross of Oxford university, the Archbishop of York and Lord Walton of Detchant, stated:
"having embraced the practice of euthanasia, the Dutch now find themselves on a slippery slope which not only involves euthanasia for those who are not dying but also euthanasia without request".
That was hardly the impression that the programme gave.
The evidence behind such a bold statement in The Times is accurate and conclusive. The Dutch Attorney-General's Remelink report of 1991 stated that, in 1990, in addition to the 2,300 cases of voluntary euthanasia, there were 1,030 deaths from euthanasia without the patient's request.
If further evidence is needed of the slippery slope, it came last year in the Chabot case—in which the Dutch supreme court upheld a Dutch doctor's decision to administer a lethal injection to a woman who was suffering from depression as a result of family difficulties. Johan Legemaate, the legal adviser to the Royal Dutch Medical Association welcomed the "pragmatic decision",

161
confirming that mental suffering could be the basis for euthanasia. I am sure that many people in the UK, even in the medical profession, are unaware of that alarming development. I note that Dr. Chabot has now been reprimanded by a medical disciplinary board in Amsterdam.
There is further evidence to suggest that the legalisation of euthanasia by the Dutch authorities has had a negative impact on the quality of care available for those suffering from degenerative and terminal conditions. It is common sense to presume that where euthanasia is an option, the incentive to improve services for people who are terminally ill or for further research into pain relief will not be so strong and the resources not so forthcoming. In 1989, a study at the university of Amsterdam of 79 cancer patients showed that only 29 per cent. had been treated appropriately. More than half had been treated inappropriately or not received any treatment at all.
Furthermore, the hospice movement is virtually non-existent in the Netherlands. A recent parliamentary question revealed that it had only five hospices, compared with almost 200 in the United Kingdom. In response, the Dutch state has said that it has a well-developed system of nursing homes, which, indeed, it does. However, I am informed by leading palliative care specialists that they fail to provide palliative care as we know it in this country. The experience of one hospice doctor in the Netherlands recently reported in the Observer would support that.
Dr. Zylicz of the Rozendaal hospice near Arnhem states that he visits patients who want euthanasia because no one has told them how their pain and distress can be alleviated. This is not surprising, because palliative care has yet to be established as a medical discipline in the Netherlands and is not an integral part of medical training. There is much that can be learnt from current practice in the Netherlands. It is evident from the facts that, once euthanasia is legalised, non-voluntary euthanasia will follow and the vulnerable and weak members of society may feel pressurised. Dr. Zylicz claimed that one of his patients went to his hospice while her doctor was away, for the doctor had been putting pressure on her to request euthanasia.
A further point of concern is the manner in which euthanasia has been legalised. Technically it still remains a crime under the criminal code. However, in 1994 an official decree stated that doctors might avoid prosecution if life was actively terminated in a range of circumstances. The Dutch have arrived at the current position through judicial review via a number of difficult court cases. I fear deeply that the same could happen in this country unless Parliament is wise to it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has already stated, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society has gone on record as stating that it expects change, not through Parliament but through judicial review. The decriminalising of intentional killing, regardless of the circumstances for which it was permitted, would be the dismantling of a fundamental principle on which our society and civilised behaviour are based. If such a significant change is to be discussed and considered, then Parliament, not the courts, is the proper arena.
I remain firmly opposed to euthanasia, which I understand to mean intentional killing either by act or omission as part of medical care. I do not believe that we
162
should keep people alive as long as possible. I feel strongly that there are times when it may be appropriate to withhold or withdraw medical treatment.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the pressures on the medical profession could derive from the Government's collection of statistics, league tables or whatever one likes to call them. There is a danger that there will grow up a premium in the number of deaths that a unit has managed to avoid. Quite a few young doctors in particular already show excessive enthusiasm for trying, for example, to revive patients who have died peacefully and bring them back, often damaged. My hon. Friend, particularly in her role as Chairman of the Select Committee, might like to think about that.
Mrs. Roe: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not on our list of subjects to be examined by the Select Committee at present, but it is surely clear that common sense must prevail. I assume that the medical profession must have a serious role in the matter and give direction from the top of that profession.
Furthermore, I endorse the right of a competent patient to refuse consent to any medical intervention, for whatever reason. In such circumstances, I understand that the doctor must be sure that the patient understands the likely consequences of any such refusal. However, no member of the health care team can overrule such a decision except in certain defined areas of mental illness. I support that. However, the right to refuse medical treatment is very different from the request for euthanasia.
As Lord Walton of Detchant, the Chairman of the Medical Ethics Select Committee in another place, stated in summing up the views of his Committee, there was not sufficient reason to weaken society's regard for intentional killing:
"Individual cases cannot reasonably establish the foundation of a policy which would have serious and widespread repercussions".— [Official Report, House of Lords; 9 May 1994, Vol. 554, c. 1346.]
Lord Walton went on:
"our decision was significantly influenced by the outstanding achievement of the palliative care movement in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 9 May 1994, Vol. 554, 1346.]
During the past few years, I have arranged for a number of Members of both Houses to visit hospices in the London area, and many have been surprised by the quality of the medical expertise and the nursing care.
Through research and development, the hospice movement can alleviate pain in 96 per cent. of patients treated and in the remaining 4 per cent. it can be reduced, although perhaps with some difficulty. Although much has been achieved which the Committee commended, there remains much to do, and I draw the Minister's attention to the development at Oxford currently under way the Oxford International Centre for Palliative Care, of which I am a patron. The centre, to be attached to the two universities, will seek to disseminate knowledge on hospice care in this country and abroad. Having secured planning permission and a lease, the centre is raising the necessary £5 million to begin development.
I hope that we as a nation can learn from the current practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. In addition, I hope that every encouragement can be given to the hospice alternative, which has achieved so much since the founding of St. Christopher's in 1967 and which remains a beacon of hope to many.
12.27 pm
Ms Liz Lynne: I support the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in this debate. We already have informed consent in Britain. A patient can refuse medical treatment, as has already been said. The doctor has to explain what will happen if that medical treatment is withdrawn. No medical person can overrule that decision. But euthanasia is totally different. It is assistance in dying. That is what I am against.
I can understand people's desire to end the life of a loved one who is suffering. We have probably all been through the dilemma of watching someone we love dying in a tremendous amount of pain. But now 96 per cent. of pain can be alleviated through palliative care. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has just said, the hospice movement has been doing an absolutely wonderful job by the care and love that it gives to patients and to the relatives of patients in dealing with the problems of a loved one dying.
The hospice movement also provides a dignified death and a tremendous amount of joy. I find incredible in hospices the amount of joy in the nurses, the patients and the relatives. It comes from the acceptance of death. The staff help the relatives to accept it and they help the patient to accept it. Patients know that they will have a dignified and peaceful death. Pain relief is essential. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, if delivering that pain relief shortens life, so be it, as long as that is not the reason for doing so.
Palliative care need not be residential—the Macmillan nurses give very good palliative care—but the Government must provide more funding for the hospice movement generally; I ask the Minister to take that on board.
We have such a well-developed hospice movement here compared with other countries such as the Netherlands, where euthanasia is not supposed to be legal but is permitted in certain defined circumstances. Procedures there are supposed to be tightly controlled, but as the Remmelink report stated in 1990, which is some years ago, 1,030 patients who had not requested death had their lives terminated. That is the slippery slope.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne highlighted the case of the 50–year-old woman suffering from mental stress. There was nothing physically wrong with her, but the doctors and lawyers agreed that she could die. That is extremely worrying, especially for elderly, sick and disabled people who will feel that they are under pressure to end their lives.
Now that a person's house can be sold to pay for nursing home care, such people will feel that they are under even more pressure to sell their homes so that their children will inherit something. A minority of unscrupulous relatives will urge them to end their lives. Most relatives are not unscrupulous, but if such a measure passed into law a few would be. People do not like to hear that, but we have to face the facts. The only reason that the majority of people want to end a relative's life is to stop the suffering, but now that more pain relief is available that is not necessary. We must ensure that pain relief is given and that people can end their lives in dignity.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the hon. Member for Macclesfield and to reject any move to legalise euthanasia. I have respect for life and believe that God, and not people, should take that life.
164
Whether or not people believe, we will be on the slippery slope. However well motivated the calls for voluntary euthanasia, I urge all hon. Members to reject them.
12.32 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: So far I have heard only one side of the debate. As the House will know, I introduced the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill about two years ago. I must inform the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I did not withdraw it—for certain reasons it was introduced from behind the Chair.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield has adopted a very aggressive style throughout this debate. His speech was mostly based on scaremongering and was an attempt to stifle the debate on this important issue. The House has the right to listen to the other point of view as well. I am fully aware that conservatism, with a small c, dominates this House but the hon. Member has tried to ridicule the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the opinion polls that have clearly shown that opinion is shifting away from the old attitude that we should not discuss the right to chose to take one's own life when one is suffering from an incurable disease and in awful pain and does not wish to remain in this world.
I must make it clear that I shall be talking only about voluntary euthanasia, with the emphasis on the word "voluntary". It is important to make that distinction, otherwise the debate is confused. I shall emphasise the importance of voluntary euthanasia as the free and willing choice of a competent adult. Modern understanding of voluntary euthanasia is that it should happen when a patient requires medical help to die because he or she is incurably ill, or suffering unbearable distress from his or her condition.
The right to exercise that choice entirely sums up what the voluntary euthanasia movement is about, both in this country and throughout the world. We are not talking about non-voluntary, non-consensual killing of infants, the elderly, the sick or other vulnerable people. Voluntary euthanasia should be one of the choices that is available to people at the end of life.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Khabra: No, not yet
The freedom to choose is one of the fundamental values of a multi-party democracy and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, who were elected through free and democratic choice, will welcome the extension of that choice.
The freedom to choose increases a person's expectation that he or she will have increased autonomy over all aspects of life. It is not flippant to say that, just as people can choose to adopt a life style and not be condemned for it or forced to adopt another style by society, at the end of life people should have the option to choose what is best for them. The increase in the expectation of personal autonomy is one reason why support for voluntary euthanasia has increased to its present level of about 80 per cent. among the general public. The hon. Member for Macclesfield ridiculed that out of all proportion.

165
The other key element in the increase in support for voluntary euthanasia is the desire to avoid unnecessary suffering. Even in our medically advanced society, it is a sad fact that many people suffer unbearably before death comes as the only release.
I have known two people who have suffered in such a way, and hon. Members should be aware that they suffered because their pain could not be cured. I know one person who died after being bedridden for three years. He suffered awful pain and could not move from his bed and, despite the most modern treatment, he finally could not survive. I used to visit him. He lived in a small town in Kent and had spent his whole life fighting against British imperialism. When he returned to India, he became a very important person and was elected as a member of a state legislature.
When he started to suffer from awful pain, he got the best treatment in India because of his contacts with the medical profession and his political friends. When he could get no relief from the pain, he decided to come to this country. He had the best possible treatment here but could not get rid of his pain. At the age of 92, he told me that he had no wish to live in this world. He said that he had seen the whole world and asked why he could not take his life as he did not want to live. He said that he was not living but was just a cabbage. He could neither move nor talk properly but was mentally alert. He wanted to take his life but was not allowed to take that decision.
Another constituent who has spent nearly 35 years in this country has been in bed for nine years. He cannot sit without assistance, he cannot eat properly or go to the toilet. Despite the fact that he is a religious man and believes in God, he thinks that it is not worth living and wishes to die, but he cannot.
May I make it clear that I do not ignore or seek to downgrade the wonderful work of the hospice movement? Hospices are truly wonderful places that provide invaluable care for many people, allowing them to die with dignity and the minimum of suffering. I very much admire their work, but even the best-managed hospice cannot keep everyone free from pain. Palliative care experts, often hospice doctors, accept that not all terminal pain can be controlled.
I have heard the slippery slope argument, which is another scare story that is being spread around the world and this country. Opponents of voluntary euthanasia argue that voluntary euthanasia will soon lead to involuntary euthanasia—the so-called "slippery slope". The slippery slope argument has been used against every social reform in the history of this country, but there is no evidence for it. Voluntary euthanasia is entirely about personal choice and is distinct from murdering people whom others judge to be of less worth. I would not support legislation for involuntary euthanasia.
Some people are afraid that, if euthanasia becomes legal, it will be abused. I recognise and fully understand that fear, but nobody knows how much abuse takes place at present. Active euthanasia is practised outside the law. If it were brought out into the open and strictly controlled, as it is in the Netherlands, abuse would be less likely. For instance, at present, doctors allow patients to die by withholding treatment or not resuscitating after a heart attack. No one suggests that they do so because they want to free beds or are conspiring with greedy relatives. Safeguards against such abuse can be incorporated in future legislation.
166
It is time that the House reflected public opinion and brought the issue of decision making at the end of life out into the open. The decision to end life should be in the hands of those most involved—the patients. In the absence of a law permitting medical help to die, the power to control one's own destiny can be exercised by completing an advance directive or "living will", as they are often called. Drawing up an advance directive while a patient is of sound mind and body allows the patient to state clearly that, with a given prognosis, he or she does not want life-prolonging treatment.
Many thousands of people have already signed advance directives because they live in fear of having a tortured experience prolonged by medical technology and want to express their wishes in advance. Personally, I believe that prolonging life through artificial, modern technological means was also against the wish of God.
I welcome the great advance in patients' rights with the recent report by the Law Commission and the new code of practice recently issued by the British Medical Association. Between them, they have established that advance directives have legal force, which must be respected by an attending doctor. They also acknowledge that patients have autonomy over their decision, which doctors must respect. If unwanted life-prolonging treatment is given, the doctor is liable to be charged with assault. Those of us who do not want our lives prolonged unnecessarily are grateful for the acceptance of our right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.
Allowing patients to die by withholding medical treatment is not enough. Those of us who want medical help to die should have our pleas for help answered, as that can be the only humane and compassionate response to people's need.
The House should consider the fact that the country wants some sort of legislation so that those who suffer from incurable disease and want to take their own life should be allowed to do so. Obviously, there should be guarantees against abuse. If a law is passed by the House, it must incorporate guarantees and safeguards to prevent people from using unauthorised means or exploiting the situation, and make them responsible under the law if that happens. I hope that the House will consider the fact that there is another viewpoint, although the majority of hon. Members are not yet prepared to support such legislation.
I admire and praise the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's efforts to start this democratic debate, which people have a right to discuss. People should not be muzzled. A Bill should be introduced so that we can take further steps to discuss this important issue.
12.47 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to make just a short contribution and to share my thoughts with my hon. Friends and those under whose chairmanship I have sat on the Select Committee over the years. The fact that we are debating this subject today shows that there is no stricture on open debate, and I am amazed at the closing comment by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Khabra). It was obvious that he had not even listened to the presentation of the Select Committee Chairman, who underlined the fact that euthanasia was not properly controlled in Holland and said that even the Netherlands ambassador to this country was not aware of what was going on.

167
When one denies the concept of a slippery slope, one must face the fact that doctors, nurses, lawyers and parliamentarians are all human. In every walk of life, people try to broaden the law to suit themselves. To suggest that it is not necessary to have restrictions stands against the revelations that have been made, even in the House today. An outstanding physician decided to terminate a monarch's life to hit a Times headline. The reality is that the law has been just ignored. Now we find that there are moves to broaden that law, which will be further ignored.
Depression hits most of us to some degree or other. The Old Testament contains a lovely illustration of a prophet who was in absolute depression and who wished that he might die. There was no Voluntary Euthanasia Society to help him then and the Almighty did not answer that prayer because He had something better for him. One may deny the authenticity of the scripture, but it tells us that he was taken to heaven later in a fiery chariot.
The apostle Paul, who suffered as much as any person, physically, mentally and morally, in prison and out of prison, had that most human of all wishes, that he might die, to be absent from the body and to be present with Christ, which would have been better by far. He realised, however, that there was a task to be done, and he continued to do that task.
Today, I not only support the speech by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but ask that we examine a little further the people who propose these movements. I know that in the House from time to time—I speak as a non-member of the masonic order—some people constantly see the masons behind everything. In the move to change society's thinking, could we ask the Eugenic Society to publish a list of its members so that we might know who is to the fore in so many spheres of life and changing society?
It is fascinating to see how people come along. The commission recommending changes in euthanasia includes a person who spent some time in Northern Ireland—Professor Simon Lee. He used the same philosophy to try to introduce into Northern Ireland the concepts of the Abortion Act 1967. He is seeking to broaden what is called voluntary euthanasia in the commission.
On living wills, I would have thought that lawyers would recognise that even people of sound mind regularly change their minds through life, and change their wills. I would have thought that, even on their death beds, some of those folk make valid changes to their wills. I do not believe in the concept of living wills because people change their minds.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind the let-out that one doctor suggested—that a voluntary living will may just say, "I wish to die at home". This might sound like music to the Treasury, because it would obviate any extra hospital expenses, but it could open the door for doctors, of whom some have taken the decision into their own hands, to administer the fatal dose that would terminate a person's life. We should not go further down that road—ostensibly in the name of freedom of choice—because we would create a position whereby people who need care and treatment will not be given a choice..
12.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville):I am sorry that, because of the large interest in the debate, at least one hon. Member who wished to speak has been unable to do so, but I feel obliged briefly to give the Government's view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who secured the debate, asked me to do.
Euthanasia, as literally defined, means "an easy death" but the term is commonly used and is understood to mean mercy killing—the deliberate killing of someone, at his or her request, in a terminal condition and usually in severe pain or distress.
That topic provides scope for enormous argument, as has been shown today. It is not surprising that the House of Lords was inspired to set up the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which considered that topic and the issues surrounding it. That Committee did an excellent job in sifting and analysing the mass of evidence that was put to it, and it reached some conclusions on what is a sensitive issue. That could not have been easy, given the opposing views held by many of the people who gave evidence.
Some of the key issues were debated in another place on 9 May last year. I am pleased that the House has had an opportunity to do likewise and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield for raising the matter. The Government's overriding concern in the issue is to protect patients' interests, to safeguard the patient's right to consent to or refuse treatment, to ensure that adequate protection is given to people who are in no position to speak for themselves, and, most important, to ensure that actions that have as their intention another person's death continue to be unlawful.
As the Government's published response has made clear, we welcome the Select Committee's report, and we agree with the majority of its findings. The report's key element was the clear rejection of the case for the legalisation of euthanasia. The Committee did not accept that the arguments in favour were sufficient reasons to weaken society's prohibition of intentional killing. It said:
"prohibition is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships."
It also said:
"The message which society sends to vulnerable and disadvantaged people should not, however obliquely, encourage them to seek death, but should assure them of our care and support in life."
We entirely agree.
It is essential to draw a clear distinction between euthanasia, which is a positive intervention to end life, and the withholding or withdrawal of treatment that has no curative or beneficial effect. The question of whether to withhold treatment from someone who is not benefiting from it is different from euthanasia, although it raises similar moral and ethical questions. It is a doctor's duty to advise and provide for his patient such treatment as is, in his professional judgment, in the best interests of that patient and consistent with a responsible body of medical opinion.
A person's right to refuse treatment is an important one. A patient has a right to say no to his doctors. That applies whether a patient's reasons are, and I quote a legal judgment:
"rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent."

169
Doctors have both an ethical and legal duty to abide by their patients' wishes. A clinician must of course be satisfied that a patient's decision to refuse treatment is genuine, made in a full understanding of the consequences, and not influenced by others. Someone who has a learning disability, who is mentally ill, confused as a result of drugs, or a child may not be capable of making a proper decision.
As the House has already noted, some people draw up advance directives or "living wills". They have been referred to in literature recently as advance statements, which are drawn up so that people's wishes may be taken into account in the future if, at that time, they are unable to express their views. Such statements are an extension of the patient's right to say no to treatment, and are supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and the Law Commission.
The commission makes recommendations, however, that advance statements be defined in legislation and their status clarified in law. We shall consider that proposal. Advance statements are of course nothing to do with euthanasia. They cannot require doctors to perform an illegal act such as deliberate killing.
I regard palliative care as one of the great advances in our society in recent years, as has been mentioned eloquently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In recent years, we have continued to support, with a sixfold rise in central funding, hospices and palliative care services. We shall continue to do so. We recognise their enormous contribution. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Rowe) said, in Holland there is little palliative care.
In conclusion, I shall re-state the Government's opinion. We are not engaged in any action that we believe would take us down a slippery slope. We envisage no change to the law or practice at present. I emphasise that the Government remain firmly opposed to euthanasia.

Neath General Hospital
12.59 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: On 18 and 19 March 1995, Neath hospital hit national headlines because its casualty unit was closed overnight; but that was only the tip of the iceberg. There is a crisis at the hospital, of which that casualty closure was simply an example. I believe that the hospital is deliberately being allowed to bleed to death as a result of Welsh Office policy.
The Secretary of State for Wales favours local hospitals and opposes centralisation. I applaud that. The way in which he has openly nailed his colours to the mast in that respect is very welcome. However, paradoxically, in practice his officials are sabotaging the policy that he has advocated, and that is no more clearly shown than in the impact on Neath hospital.
On 19 January 1995, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I met the Secretary of State. To be fair, we were very impressed with his response. The Secretary of State said that he supported the local hospital. He said that he would agree to additional recruitment in excess of the going rate, and that he would give a clear commitment to the future of the hospital. That was very welcome.
However, since then, we have had two more vacancies in anaesthetics and one more vacancy among surgical consultants. The hospital now says that it cannot recruit any more senior house officers after August, except by going to Germany and except by allowing a trend to continue whereby the hospital will soon be staffed almost entirely by overseas doctors.
Neath hospital has traditionally functioned as the only district hospital in West Glamorgan supplying a full range of facilities and opportunities in general medicine, general surgery, obstetrics, gynaecology, trauma, orthopaedics, paediatrics and accident and emergency. It has always had the reputation of being an efficient hospital with low costs, short waiting lists and strong support from the local public, local general practitioners and the purchasing health authority.
For some years, there has been a demand—indeed there were proposals—for a replacement hospital. That has at last been agreed, but only after the saga has dragged on for many years. The outcome was that, following a review by the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State agreed that there would be a replacement general hospital. However, it would have only 250 beds instead of the present 350–bed facility at Neath, and, instead of providing the full range of general hospital facilities that are provided at Neath, the new hospital would admit all emergency and elective planned cases with a mix of medical emergency cases and elective surgery work but would require that all trauma and high risk elective surgical cases—by that, I mean emergency surgical patients—would be treated elsewhere. It was hoped that, if that model were implemented, the hospital would be up and running in about three years.
That model was accepted by the local community, not because we favoured it—we had grave suspicions about it, which are now proving well founded—but because we felt that it was necessary to get the new hospital up and running, and that half a loaf was better than no bread.

171
Many consultants, and all local GPs, believe that the model that the Secretary of State has proposed for the new hospital, which is now being introduced by stealth, is not feasible—is seriously flawed—because it was based on the proposition that there is over-capacity in West Glamorgan, whereas anyone who knows the region knows that that is not the case.
Last year, Neath hospital was closed 90 times because it was full. This year, it has already been closed 31 times. I know of many cases that have been referred to Bridgend, Llanelli and even Cardiff because the hospital at Neath cannot cope with the referrals to it. If that is the case now, reducing the hospital bed capacity by a further 100, as will happen when the new hospital replaces it, will be a disaster. It is a myth that there is over-capacity in West Glamorgan. For that reason, the model that the Welsh Office persuaded the Secretary of State to adopt is fundamentally flawed.
The majority of the consultants in West Glamorgan have taken a different view. They say that the model is flawed because it is inappropriate to manage medical emergencies without back-up surgical facilities. They therefore seek to centralise all emergencies, including medicine, on Morriston hospital and leave the new Neath hospital—and, indeed, increasingly the present one—responsible only for dealing with out-patients and day cases and perhaps some non-acute medical cases. The implication is that there will be no obstetrics or in-patient paediatric facilities.
We are victims of what is effectively a conspiracy—I use the term deliberately, although it is a serious charge to make—by Welsh Office officials, by the Royal College of Surgeons and by consultants, to undermine the facility at Neath and to turn a once proud hospital into a pale shadow of itself, because, if one does not provide emergency surgery, training for junior staff is inadequate.
The university of Wales college of medicine allocates house officer posts. It is already signalling that it is unwilling to allocate house officer posts to Neath hospital on the basis of the existing deteriorating position, let alone the new model in the replacement hospital, in spite of the fact that Neath hospital has always had a very good reputation for training. Indeed, a recent survey placed it at the top of the list.
However, other hospitals are also in the market for house officer posts, so they are encouraging applicants, and indeed existing postholders, to withdraw from Neath and move to their own hospitals. The decision by the Royal College of Surgeons to withdraw training accreditation is making the position much worse.
I believe, and most—if not all—doctors in West Glamorgan would argue, that the model that the Secretary of State has proposed for the new hospital, which effectively is being put into practice from now on in anticipation, is fundamentally flawed, and that we should have a full range of emergency admissions, similar to that which exists, for example, at Llanelli hospital. Failure to do so has created a profound period of uncertainty, and many medical staff and other senior staff are voting with their feet. That has inevitably meant that a question mark hangs over the future of the hospital, and confidence has been destroyed.
172
The problem has been compounded by the requirement that the Secretary of State has introduced, to seek private finance funds for the new hospital, which has meant further delay and uncertainty, although he has given assurances that nevertheless it will be built on time, for which we are grateful.
The management of the hospital has tried several innovative approaches to recruit staff, but they struggle against a lack of commitment by many local consultants to the model that the Secretary of State has specified and active attempts to destabilise the position by the surrounding trusts, which are benefiting from having work taken away from Neath and moved to their hospitals.
The internal market of competitive trusts is strangling Neath hospital. That is clearly shown by the fact that independent trusts nearby are competing with Neath, not co-operating as the Secretary of State has asked. They deliberately poach staff and seek to undermine, rather than co-operate with, Neath hospital.
A whispering campaign is going on to undermine the hospital. It is happening in a variety of ways. Accreditation of junior staff is being undermined. The withdrawal of pre-registration house officer posts is having a serious effect. Disinformation is being provided to potential applicants at a junior staff level about the pace of change and the future of the hospital. Consultant staff are also being poached by adjacent trusts.
Those elements are collectively resulting in a crisis at the hospital, of which the closure of the casualty unit is simply one aspect. As a result, many of the specialties of Neath hospital rely on locum consultants, as it has proved impossible to recruit permanent staff.
We had a meeting with the Secretary of State in January, and since then, there have been a series of extra vacancies in anaesthetics and surgery. There are now four vacancies out of six in anaesthetics, and three vacancies out of four in surgery. Four of those vacancies have resulted from poaching by Morriston or Singleton hospital trusts in the neighbouring region. We suffer from direct competition.
In addition, there is one senior house office vacancy out of four in the accident and emergency unit, and house officers have threatened the withdrawal of all posts after August. That may be averted—the local management believe that that could be possible. If so, that will only be until next year, when emergency surgery is withdrawn almost completely. If that happens, there will be no casualty service—it will be closed not overnight, but permanently.
I welcomed the recent statement by the Secretary of State, in which he committed himself to local hospital provision, stressed the importance of local access and expressed his concerns about the impact of centralisation. He has shown some courage in doing so, and I welcome that. However, in terms of the way in which the internal market operates, Neath hospital was cost-effective and had strong purchaser support. It has had a reputation for being responsive to the needs of local general practitioners and the public. It has been torn apart, not because it was unsuccessful, but because of Welsh Office dogma.
That dogma is not necessarily shared by the Secretary of State, but it is implemented by his officials, and at present he seems unwilling to resist it. That has led to a disaster for outlying villages up the valleys—in former

173
mining villages such as Banwen, Glynneath and Tonmawr. Their residents now face journeys along the traffic-clogged M4 of up to half an hour to get to Morriston hospital, which has the nearest major accident and emergency and acute surgery provision. Any further traffic problems along that route could result in lives being put at risk, and many serious problems for outlying villages.
The position all depends on the environment in which the hospital now has to operate. In determining that some of the district general hospital services should transfer elsewhere, the Welsh Office has disrupted a well-established and effective pattern of services and replaced it with a model in which no one has confidence. Local medical staff, consultants, GPs, the local health authority and the local management have no confidence in it—I can find no one in my area or elsewhere who has confidence in it. The model is untested, and no one has confidence in the Secretary of State's proposal for the replacement hospital, prefigured in the way that Neath hospital is being run down.
It is not too late for the Secretary of State to act, which is why I am appealing to him in today's debate. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), will respond positively. I am seeking not to engage in a political knocking exercise, but to obtain the support of politicians and to persuade them to put themselves in charge of the Welsh Office, rather than leaving it to medical experts with fancy theories of centralisation that bear no resemblance to the need for local provision on the ground.
It is not too late for the Secretary of State to make a business case stating that the new hospital is based on retaining all the general hospital facilities. There is no evidence that the anticipated savings that some believe would come from the Secretary of State's proposals and the new model will be achieved. I would argue—I stand ready to be tested on it in future years—that the changes will cost more because, if cost-effective, small district general hospitals are replaced by high-cost, centralised, specialised facilities, they tend to ratchet up of costs. The provision will not be cheaper, but more expensive, and local people will suffer badly.
Officials at the Welsh Office continue to agree to increasing capacity in hospitals near Neath. New theatres have been built at Singleton, and there is a phase 2 development at the Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend. The Morriston hospital has recently been provided with a burns and plastics unit. All those developments have been taken place while Neath hospital has been run down.
All those hospitals have the potential to ensure that the proposed 250–bed hospital that will be sited on Baglan moor in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon is not viable. That will be particularly true if all the senior medical staff walk away from the hospital.
Civil servants at the Welsh Office seem hellbent on destroying what was once one of the most effective district general hospitals in Wales and replacing it with a new model of care which has yet to be tested anywhere in the United Kingdom, which has no local medical support and which has the potential to end up as an expensive cottage hospital, not the district general hospital that the Secretary of State promised my right hon. Friend and me in 1993.
174
I have two specific requests for the Under-Secretary of State. First, will he ensure, and make a commitment this afternoon, that admissions for emergency surgery will be kept in the new hospital and at Neath hospital? Why should we be inferior to Llanelli hospital which has that provision? Will he reject the centralisation of facilities and emergency provision which is inherent in the existing position and which will accelerate as it deteriorates, so that everything will be concentrated at either Morriston or Singleton hospitals?
If the Secretary of State genuinely believes—I have no reason to doubt him—in local hospitals and community provision, it is essential for him to reject that centralisation. It would not affect the capital requirements in the project. If the concern is to obtain private capital, such a policy may be more attractive to those interested in providing private capital, because they will recognise a model that is more familiar and more cost-effective. My first request is for the Minister to reverse the process towards centralisation, and agree that the new hospital will retain all district general hospital emergency facility capabilities.
Secondly, will the Minister instruct all the neighbouring trusts to support Neath general hospital? In the meeting which we had with him in January, the Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend and me that he was keen to discourage neighbouring trust hospitals from competing and undermining Neath, and that, on the contrary, they should support it. But there has been no letter from the Secretary of State's office to those trust hospitals to implement that wish.
I ask the Secretary of State to send such a letter. If he does not do so, local people will face a catastrophe—a hospital which they have valued for generations, which is much loved and which has provided a range of district general hospital facilities upon which they have grown to depend, will be swept away. In its place, we shall have a hospital on Baglan moor that is a pale shadow of its former self, because Neath hospital is being allowed to bleed to death.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the current and future provision of accident and emergency services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot.
Accident and emergency facilities play an important role in the provision of health services to meet the needs of the public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to ensuring that both the current service at Neath general hospital and the future service at Baglan hospital will meet those needs. Contrary to recent media reports and to what the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said, there is no conspiracy against Neath general hospital, although there are difficulties in achieving the outcome that we desire.
I thought that the hon. Member's attack on Welsh Office officials was quite disgraceful. He knows perfectly well that they are in no position to answer his outrageous charges against them. If the hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is not in full charge of the Welsh Office, he clearly does not know my right hon. Friend very well.

175
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a whispering campaign designed to undermine the morale of Neath general hospital. Nothing is more likely to undermine the morale of the hospital's staff or the recruitment of future staff than his standing on the world stage and drawing attention to some of the difficulties that Neath general hospital currently faces.
Mr. Hain: That is an outrageous charge. I know what is going on in Neath general hospital. The Minister talks to his officials from on high; he does not know what is going on at Neath hospital. What I have said has nothing to do with accusations; I have presented the factually supported results of the Minister's policies. People are walking away from Neath hospital. The whispering campaign is being conducted not by politicians, but by his own Welsh Office officials and by consultants working in concert with them.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it leads me to my next remarks. I visited Neath general hospital on 16 February 1995 to see at first hand the excellent work that all involved at the hospital have achieved. I also talked to the local clinicians, and listened to their concerns.
I share the concerns expressed at the staffing difficulties that led recently to the temporary closure of the accident unit at Neath general hospital. I understand that efforts are being made to avoid further disruption, first through the appointment of a full-time locum consultant in the accident and emergency department in order to cover the maternity leave of the present consultant; and, secondly, by attempting to recruit accident and emergency senior house officers from a wider field, such as Germany. I think that the hon. Gentleman's comments about medical staff from overseas being employed at Neath general hospital are a bit rich, in view of the fact that he is an overseas Member of Parliament.
Should that exercise be unsuccessful, I understand that efforts will be made to identify other career-grade doctors who could be employed on a permanent basis. I am assured that five candidates have been shortlisted for anaesthetist positions at the hospital. That is an encouraging response, and interviews will be held shortly.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined that everything shall be done to ensure that accident and emergency units in Wales—not just in Neath—avoid further temporary closures due to staffing problems. But the staffing problems are not particular to Neath or to Wales; they are being experienced in many parts of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Neath on 28 March, summarising the urgent action that he has asked for in order to address the staffing problems. That aims to ensure that any short-term staffing difficulties in accident and emergency units are identified as soon as possible. It also seeks to ensure that effective measures are taken to reduce significantly the risk of disruption to patients.
Senior medical staff from the Welsh Office recently met accident and emergency experts in South Wales to identify the problems involved. They also agreed what needs to be done to ensure continuity of service in this
176
essential area of care. I am told that the meeting identified a number of the more important factors which have made it difficult to recruit enough experienced staff to the casualty service.
The meeting also proposed possible solutions to those difficulties. They include the employment of nurse practitioners, more career-grade appointments, and the rotation of medical posts to include a number of other accident and emergency departments. The co-operation that the hon. Member for Neath referred to, and specifically asked me to comment upon, is taking place already. I assure him that the chairman of West Glamorgan health authority recently wrote to the chairmen of the three existing national health service trusts to emphasise the need for local cooperation.
More work will be required in order to build on that promising start, but I am hopeful that a satisfactory understanding can be reached between hospitals in South Wales as to how they can work together to minimise the risk of further disruption to those essential services.
In July 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his approval to West Glamorgan health authority proposals for improving health services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot. The plans included the provision of a 24–hour local accident unit at the new hospital at Baglan.
In giving his approval, my right hon. Friend recognised the need for the people of Neath and Port Talbot to have an appropriate local accident and emergency service. The new local accident unit will provide for the majority of cases currently cared for by the existing accident and emergency departments—including about 75 per cent. of all cases at Neath hospital—including simple fractures, and it will do so in state-of-the-art facilities.
It remains the view of my right hon. Friend and me, based on the best medical advice available to us, that seriously injured patients and those requiring more complex or high-risk emergency surgery should be treated in centres where full back-up services are available, including neurosurgery in the case of Morriston. It is centres such as those which have been shown to deliver the best results in terms of reducing the threat to life and avoiding permanent disability.
I have talked about accident and emergency services at Neath, and our commitment to providing appropriate local accident services at the new hospital at Baglan. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on progress with the new hospital as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the hon. Member for Neath, together with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), on 19 January 1995, and confirmed he his commitment to developing services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Neath has said today, we want to see services maintained at Neath general hospital while planning for the new Baglan hospital goes ahead.
I am aware that local medical opinion remains divided about the precise role of the new hospital. Concern has been expressed about the recruitment of medical staff for the new hospital, and the opportunities there will be for the training and development of such staff. When my right hon. Friend gave his approval to the new hospital, his three main criteria were: clinical safety, access to services for the local population, and value for money. Of those, the most important are clinical safety and access.

177
A judgment was made that, in order to maximise access for the local population, the widest range of health services that could be safely delivered locally should be provided at Baglan. As well as the local accident unit, the new hospital will therefore offer out-patient clinics and the most up-to-date facilities to deal with non-emergency surgery, as well as acute general medicine, care of the elderly, rehabilitation services and facilities for people with acute mental illness.
When the decision was made, all of the local national health service interests were asked to work together to ensure that the new hospital was developed as quickly as possible, without disruption of services. It is therefore with disappointment that my right hon. Friend and I have observed the continuing public disagreements in West Glamorgan about the role of the new hospital. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no favours by continuing that argument in the Chamber. I am sure that many—including, patients and local people—will see the disagreements as blocking the way to early progress with the development of Baglan.
At the end of the day, the Welsh Office can provide only the framework and funding, where needed, in order to improve local health services. The delivery of improved services depends entirely on local health professionals and managers putting aside any differences and working together to improve services for patients. Local people expect no less.
I was therefore encouraged to learn that the chairman of West Glamorgan health authority has invited the chairmen and chief executives of local NHS trusts to meet to agree what needs to be done in order to resolve local differences and how best to finalise the planning for the new hospital at Baglan. I very much welcome his initiative, and I have asked for a report on the outcome of the meeting.
From 1 April 1996, when the new West Glamorgan health authority is to be established, the area will be well served by four national health service trusts, which will provide high-quality patient care from four main district general hospitals. A full range of community care and health services will also be provided for many local hospitals and clinics throughout the area. The services in West Glamorgan will then comprise the regional burns and plastics centre, a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, a special care baby unit and a centrally funded treatment centre, in addition to acute and community services.
The trusts will employ a dedicated staff of around 10,000, including highly qualified clinicians and nurses. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the proposal to build a hospital at Baglan, he said that, if there was insufficient capacity there in terms of the number of beds, it would be looked at again, and the hon. Member for Neath knows that.
I hope that what I have said confirms the Department's determination to ensure that health services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot meet the high standards which the public rightly expects from today's NHS. I also emphasise—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Grant-maintained schools
1.30 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of grant-maintained schools, and I also wish to talk widely about funding. There is no doubt that the Government's reforms have given parents better choice and information about their children's education while raising standards significantly. Since 1979, spending per pupil has risen by 50 per cent. over inflation. We have also given schools the opportunity to become grant-maintained, which provides a form of choice within the state system.
There are three secondary schools in my constituency which have become grant-maintained—Belper, with approximately 1,000 pupils; Ecclesbourne, with approximately 1,300 pupils; and Lady Manners school at Bakewell, which has more than 1,400 pupils.
The head of Belper said that the school had benefited from enhanced funding because
"although we are linked to the Derbyshire formula the element of central costs can be spent specifically to meet our own needs. Independence enables us to manage our finances far more effectively because we have full control."
The head of Ecclesbourne said that the last four years
"have been the most professionally fulfilling of nearly two decades of headship. Not only have we been able to put right most of the physical deficiencies of the School's site and buildings, we have been able to assign a much higher proportion of what was our share of the resources allocated to Derbyshire for education to the business of teaching and learning."
The head of Lady Manners said:
"Independence, control of policies or developments and the direction of resources to achieve these priorities for the benefit of student counts among the major gains of GM status. So too the renewed enthusiasm of Governors and staff which flows from being able to plan with a realistic hope of delivery. Staff morale is greatly strengthened reflecting improved working conditions, extra ancillary support, more teachers …, hefty increase in spending on books and equipment and a major programme of redecoration".
Those are some of the genuine changes that the grant-maintained system has brought to state education, and I welcome them. However, I must acknowledge that not all schools wish to go down the route of becoming grant-maintained. That is something that I respect, although schools that have become grant-maintained have found enhanced freedoms.
I would like to bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention one of the problems for grant-maintained schools, which is the way in which the budgets for grant-maintained schools are set. I would like the Government to embark on a national funding formula for all schools—whether grant-maintained or not. At the moment, there are great variations as to what money is made available by LEAs to go into schools.
For example, in Hertfordshire the delegation is 91.3 per cent, while the delegation in Derbyshire is 85 per cent.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be an apologist for Derbyshire county council, he can apply for his own debate. There are problems in my constituency which are related to the fact that Derbyshire county council is holding back far too much finance.

179
Derbyshire's overall schools budget represents spending of about £2,280 pounds per pupil—higher than 12 other counties—while the potential school budget represents £1,840 per pupil, which is higher only than Dorset, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire. The actual amount delegated to schools in Derbyshire is £1,560 per pupil—the second lowest of any county after Gloucestershire. The hold-back in Derbyshire amounts to some £720 per pupil which is spent by the LEA.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My local council is about as bad as Derbyshire. For village schools, however, it is not only a question of funding. My county council has repeatedly attempted to close village schools, and was prevented from doing so only by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The county council is rumoured to be about to attempt again to close village schools. If those schools were to become grant-maintained, they would not only get better funding but be safe. Once a school has become grant-maintained, a county council cannot close it—even if it wishes to do so.
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend might also find that schools that become grant-maintained become far more attractive to parents. The schools would find their numbers going up, which would improve their position.
There are so many different ways in which people look at finance for education. One of my beliefs is that we desperately need a national funding formula. Of the amount withheld from its potential schools budget, Staffordshire spends £2,975,000 on management, or 1 per cent., to manage some 160,000 pupils. In Derbyshire, the figure is £3,787,000, or 1.6 per cent., to manage some 128,000 pupils. That £1 million is spent by the LEA and is not available to go to schools.
My point—as I have said before—is that one cannot spend money twice. If one is spending more money on administration, that money is not available to go into schools in the county. We need a national understanding of the way in which education finance is worked out. The differences between the potential schools budget and the aggregate schools budget create confusion. That has allowed county councils to receive money for education without putting that money directly into schools.
Some £720 per pupil was spent by Derbyshire LEA in addition to the amount delegated to each school, compared with £570 in Nottinghamshire and £550 in Staffordshire. That is a difference of £150 per pupil, which makes a vast sum when we are talking about a primary school with 200 pupils—let alone what it amounts to in secondary schools. I urge my hon. Friend and the Government seriously to consider a national funding formula.
In 1994–95, the education standard spending assessment for Derbyshire rose by 2 per cent., but the county council cut it by 2 per cent. This year, the education SSA is to rise by 0.7 per cent., but schools are receiving cuts in their budgets. Cuts are coming at the sharp end, and the council has started to blame everyone but itself.
The power of local authority decisions to affect the funding of grant-maintained schools must be removed. The Minister and the Secretary of State have stated that local authorities have a right to set their own priorities,
180
but the interests of pupils in the grant-maintained sector are not among the priorities of local education authorities which have done everything they possibly can to stop schools becoming grant-maintained. More generally, protecting front-line services conflicts with a local authority's desire to protect its own powers of control and employees who want to carry out their instructions.
The current funding formula goes some way towards improving the position of GM schools. It protects them from changes in the local management of schools formula, which can be manipulated to their disadvantage. However, it is subject to the removal of the top slice, which the LEA can plan to increase, leaving a reduced amount for front-line services. The link with LEA spending decisions contributes to unacceptable delays in receiving funding information.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been pursuing with the Funding Agency for Schools the difference between the amounts originally promised to GM schools and the actual grants. One explanation given by the agency is the discrepancy between estimated pupil numbers provided by schools and those provided by LEAs. If the agency cannot even get agreement on pupil numbers, that matter must be seriously addressed.
A national funding formula is the only way to ensure long-term accountability for decisions on school incomes and major items of expenditure. In return, a school can be expected to account to parents for proper management of the funds that it receives and to accept its share of responsibility. National funding should be distributed in an equitable, predictable and simple manner dissociated from historical and current spending issues, and be transparent.
Experience shows that it is sometimes unwise to make major changes without a pilot scheme. The grant-maintained sector should, and could, be used for a pilot, and then the scheme ought to be made available to every school in the country. In that way, the Government can ensure that the money that they set aside for education gets to front-line services. I do not mind taking the blame for decisions when I have responsibility for them, but not when I do not have any responsibility. Local education authorities are ensuring that money that should go to front-line services is used in other ways.
We have never blinked or taken a backward step from radical approaches in education now endorsed by many hon. Members. Some of them have taken advantage of those changes—for example, by sending their children to schools that best meet their needs, even when that means crossing borders. Ten years ago, such choices were unknown, before the Bill for which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) had much responsibility, jointly with other Ministers.
I do not want those excellent changes to be put at risk but want further changes to be made. I want the money designated for education to be used in schools, not in county halls. At the moment, there are too many ways in which funds can be diverted into the pet areas of chief education officers or education committee chairmen. The right way forward is a national funding formula for all schools. Until then, let us have a pilot scheme.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider also making a minor change. When a county becomes part of a common funding formula, why not announce that all primary and secondary schools in that county will be part of that formula? Let us do away with the differential

181
between primary and secondary schools. That would be a small start, but a small start in a major direction—and one of major significance to our state education system.
1.44 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for allowing me to speak in this timely debate. He kindly mentioned my role in the enactment of the Education Reform Act 1988, which gave powers and opportunities to schools to opt out of local authority control if that was the wish of parents expressed in a ballot. I am delighted that, in my constituency, nine schools have become grant-maintained since 1988. Together with the city technology college, they offer choice and variety second to none in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may point out gently to the House and to the people of Dartford that the range of schools in north-west Kent exists not because of spontaneous combustion or divine intervention but because of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979. It is an indisputable fact that Labour would end that choice. Despite all the efforts of the spin doctors and soundbite merchants who currently dominate the Labour party, it would take away grant-maintained status, close grammar schools, CTCs and high schools and require all schools in Dartford to become comprehensives for 11 to 16–year-olds. Of that there is no doubt.
One message that came out of Blackpool over the last few days from the National Union of Teachers conference—apart from showing a trade union out of control—was that the union expected a Labour Government to return the 1,050 opted-out schools to local authority control, despite the wishes of parents, expressed in the democratic process, for those schools to opt out.
Gravesend grammar school for boys, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) but to which many parents in my constituency send their children, recently voted by a 70 per cent. majority to become grant-maintained. Parents from Hartley, Fawkham, Ash-cum-Ridley, Longfield, New Barn and Southfleet voted with others from Gravesend to that effect. Of significance was the success of that vote, despite the best endeavours of the county council, and the fact that the campaign was led, motivated and supported by the chairman of governors, Mr. Eric Hammond—who I suspect has more to do with Labour Members than with the Conservative party. That campaign was successful because parents had seen the value and benefit of grant-maintained status.
Sixty thousand children in Kent are currently educated in grant-maintained schools. A vote for Labour in the forthcoming local elections would be a vote to end that situation. It would be a vote against grammar schools, CTCs and high schools, and a vote against local freedom for local schools in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire described.
Only the Conservative party, believing in Conservative policies, would ensure the continuation of the current position. I advise the people of Dartford to think carefully before they vote on 4 May. A vote for Labour is a vote to end range, variety and freedom of choice. The grant-maintained policy was one of the best that this Government have ever introduced. More and more schools and parents will see that as time goes on. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The House has been privileged to hear powerful and well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), a former Education Minister who speaks with great authority on these matters. I confess that the subject of grant-maintained schools is one close to my heart, and it allowed my hon. Friends to refer to several other aspects of funding and related issues. In the time available, I shall seek to respond to the points made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire.
Perhaps the obvious starting point on funding is to confirm that Derbyshire county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its own priorities between and within services. It is the council that has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much on other services. As we are all aware, there are wide variations between and within authorities, because local management of schools schemes devote additional funding to schools with high levels of need.
It is important to put on record yet again the fact that the Government and Ministers are not seeking to pass the buck. Our role is clear in funding local authority services. We set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally. We determine the way in which national standard spending totals are distributed between local authorities through the standard spending assessment system.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, over the past five years, Derbyshire's SSA has increased by over 23 per cent., which has been well above the rate of inflation. As he knows, the SSA is scheduled to increase during the current year, 1995–96. The capping rules allow Derbyshire to spend more than the council did in 1994–95. In total, Derbyshire is able to spend about £550 million on all its services. That is a significant sum.
My hon. Friend drew attention to some funding per pupil comparisons with other authorities. He mentioned Hertfordshire and Staffordshire. I shall not bedevil the debate with a mass of statistics, but it is important that I take up a couple of central issues, not least because I know from the correspondence that the Department receives that there is some misunderstanding when it comes to funding per pupil comparisons.
The SSA system does not set out to allow the same level of spending for each pupil. Indeed, it should not do so. The aim is to provide for funding for a common standard of service throughout the country, taking account of the fact that the costs of providing education inevitably vary from local education authority to local education authority. Need varies from one council to another and so, therefore, does poundage for pupil as implied in each authority's SSA.
The SSAs reflect the additional costs of educating children in sparsely populated areas, for example. They take account of socio-economic disadvantage, high proportions of non-English-speaking children and higher labour and other costs through what is known in the trade as the area cost adjustment. As my hon. Friend knows, the ACA is fairly controversial. Very few local authorities, whether they are recipients of the ACA or non-recipients, agree on its calculation. However, no local authority

183
association questions the need for some way of recovering the inevitably higher costs that councils in the south-east face in running their schools. These considerations are not limited purely to teachers' salaries. They read across into other expenditure areas and other employment areas within schools.
We are interested in considering whether the present methodology could be improved, and we shall consider carefully the different representations that we have received on the issue. In doing that, however, we must take account of all the factors—I have listed only a few—that cause education costs to vary throughout the country.
My hon. Friend spoke with great feeling about the share of budget retained by the Derbyshire LEA.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
Mr. Squire: As echoed by my hon. Friend.
As both my hon. Friends are aware, the level of resources retained by LEAs has to be a matter for them to determine, subject only to a minimum requirement that they must delegate 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget to schools.
In 1994–95, Derbyshire just managed to achieve the minimum requirement. Despite an intervention from a sedentary position that I heard earlier, I must say that the matter has not yet formally been advised to my Department. I understand that preliminary signs for the current year, 1995–96, are that Derbyshire will be in the middle of the range when it comes to examining the amounts that authorities hold back.
It is important that we should encourage delegation, but not for delegation's sake alone, which would be foolish. It is important that the scheme should command the support of schools within an LEA. It is clear, however, from our experience of grant-maintained schools, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire made correct and proper reference, that the more that schools control their own budgets, the better value for money they get, to the benefit of the pupils in their care.
Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between the potential schools budget and the allocation of 85 per cent. and the general schools budget? If we consider delegation over the two budgets, we see that the figure is substantially lower than 85 per cent.
Mr. Squire: There is a difference between the two budgets, from which I was endeavouring to protect the House. In terms of the potential schools budget, 85 per cent. is covered by regulation. I readily confirm that there are at least two separate figures involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a national funding formula. Here we are in extremely interesting waters. I need no persuading that there are attractions in principle in a national uniform system that is simple to understand, more manageable to operate and demonstrably fair and transparent. As I am sure other
184
Ministers have said in other contexts, however, it is not quite as simple as that. There are several strategic questions.
My hon. Friend made it clear that he would apply a national funding formula to GM schools and non-GM schools. He will understand immediately that that is not necessarily the outcome of such a formula. If it were to apply only to GM schools, what would be the position of LEA schools? My hon. Friend recognises that that question would arise. If a national funding formula covered all schools, what would we do about local discretion, which presently allows local authorities to spend more or less of their education SSA on a school as they deem fit? Where in all this would SSAs fit in?
In terms of principle, the local management of schools and the common funding formula have already demonstrated the tensions that can be created between self-evident ideals. How do we reconcile the simplicity argument with meeting a wide range of needs? I say with certainty as someone who has wrestled—I hope advantageously—with the common funding formula over the past year or two that there is a difficult trade-off between simplicity and meeting the needs of schools. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to see schools with higher expenditure finding relief within the funding system.
The issue is topical and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic in principle. However, I urge my hon. Friend and other supporters of a national funding formula to allow us to proceed carefully. The worst option of all would be to produce an entirely new formula that contained within it, because of the speed with which it had been created, the seeds of great and significant problems. I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend on that issue and that he accepts that we are open to persuasion.
The central factor, to which all my hon. Friends have referred, is the glowing success of the GM movement and self-governing in schools in general.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, once a school has become grant-maintained, the county cannot close it?
Mr. Squire: I confirm that the county cannot close it. All school closures, by definition, come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although a county can comment on the position of a grant-maintained school, it does not have the power to close it. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
By controlling their budgets, as hon. Members have said, grant-maintained schools control their own destiny. We have heard all the advantages, but I shall not repeat them, because time does not allow me to do so. I do not wish to suggest that grant-maintained status is the only precondition of success, as there are good schools that are not grant-maintained, but there is a disproportionate number of successful schools in the grant-maintained sector. That is striking. It is the freedom that grant-maintained schools enjoy, to release energy, enterprise and commitment, that allows schools to realise success throughout the country, and many found that impossible under local authority control.

Bull Bars
2 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: Mr. Ian Farnworth, aged 17, of Whitley Bay, was killed last November by a bull bar. His father asked me to mention his son's name in today's debate, because both his parents, his surgeon, Mr. Charles Goring, and the local newspaper, the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, are convinced that Mr. Farnworth would be alive today if the vehicle that hit him had not had a bull bar. I could fill the next half an hour with a litany of similar sad stories. This one is particularly harrowing because it involved a young man in the prime of life, who had just left school and was about to embark on his first job. His life was destroyed by a part of a vehicle that has no practical value and is merely a fashion accessory.
There are many other vivid reports. I shall mention one of them, but I will not mention the man's name because I do not have the permission of his family. The son of a man killed in Cleveland described his father's injuries. He said:
"My father's spine was broken in five places and his pelvis was so bad that his leg virtually fell off. His body was shattered. The doctor said it was as if he had been hit by a ten-ton going at 70mph. The bull bars made a terrible impact."
The man was hit not by a truck but by a police van, travelling, as in the other case, below the speed limit.
These terrible adornments on cars concentrate the impact of the collision on a tiny area rather than a larger area, as would be the case if someone were struck by a car that did not have a bull bar. I am grateful to the researchers in this country, including the Transport Research Laboratory, and the researchers in Germany, New Zealand and Australia, who have sent me a huge number of reports and information, all of which come to the same conclusion: bull bars turn slight injury accidents into serious injury accidents, and serious accidents into fatalities.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject today. I shall give him one example—a personal example. My son, two years ago, when he was two, was involved in an accident in which a car hit him. The car was probably travelling at about 10 mph at the time. He ended up with a very bloody head injury, which caused him and his parents enormous distress for 24 hours, but fortunately that was all it was. If that car had been equipped with bull bars, my son might not be alive today, so I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to the debate that my hon. Friend has introduced.
Mr. Flynn: There is a particular peril for children, because the height of the bar is often the same height as a child's head. The research from Germany shows that 95 per cent. of children would be expected to survive the impact of a crash at about 20 mph, but a vehicle fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening injuries on all children if it were travelling at 12 mph, and that they could possibly die even at 10 mph. Those are horrific figures. In fact, the German researchers stopped using the plastic domes to represent a child's head in any of their trials because they were shattering at such low speeds.
The argument against bull bars has been proven. Figures from the TRL, backed up by all the other research, show that the fitting of bull bars in the United Kingdom
186
could lead to 35 additional deaths and 350 additional serious injuries each year by 1996. But things are far worse than that, because, as the Royal Automobile Club pointed out—it has conducted a splendid campaign on this matter—the figures were based on a projection of 2.4 per cent. of the vehicle fleet being fitted with bull bars. Now that they are increasingly being fitted to delivery vans, pick-up trucks—even—ambulances—the total potential market for bull bars is about 12 per cent. of the UK vehicle market. If we extrapolate from those figures, we are talking about an additional 175 fatal accidents and an additional 1,750 serious accidents.
What is the purpose of bull bars? They started in Australia, and even as long ago as 1980 the Australians said that they were dangerous and that they had no useful purpose other than in agricultural use. In Australia, they were known as "roo" bars, because kangaroos were attracted to vehicles and the bars were used to protect the headlights of vehicles. There is a case to be made, as many people have told me, for the use of bull bars on farmland and so on. It is quite reasonable that they should be used, like other farm implements, on agricultural land, but banned on the road. It is quite simple to make them demountable, as many of them are at the moment. That is simple. We are talking about the cars that are used on public roads.
I am grateful to the Minister and to his predecessor for the many letters that they have sent me, which have been considerate and thoughtful. They understand the position precisely, but the area with which I disagree is that they have not taken any effective action to reduce the numbers. The Minister told me in July last year that his Department was asking the motor industry to act and not to fit bull bars or advertise them. Unfortunately, that was a failure. Only one company—Volvo, I understand—has banned them, to its great credit.
I received a letter from a gentleman in London, who told me that, in the interests of road safety, he wanted to fit two additional lamps on his Rover Discovery, but the only way of fitting them was to install a bull bar and to screw them to the frame. So to achieve the safety that he needed on the road, he had to do what he thought to be unsafe and install a bull bar. The rest of the industry has not responded to the Government's attempt to remove bull bars and reduce their number. In fact their number is increasing.
There have been other attempts by the Government to reduce the use of bull bars. In 1992, the Government asked the TRL to consider whether a code of practice could be a way of avoiding the increased risk in the short term until the European directive could be agreed and implemented. The TRL carried out a very limited test programme. It showed that the suggested code was impractical, because a prototype bull bar made to the code gave a worse test result than a standard bar.
Sadly, the TRL, in a letter that was written a week ago today, tells me that it does not see any further research taking place, apart from the police statistics that are being collected, because it does not have a sponsor for further research. It is a side issue, although an important one, but no one has a vested financial interest in saving lives, particularly those of people whose identity we do not know. It would be terrible if the work of the TRL was skewed into serving the motor trade, which is mainly

187
responsible for encouraging these bars, rather than serving the interest of the future casualties and their families; we need someone to undertake that research.
The insurance companies have been helpful and are concerned. The Norwich Union told me that, when such devices are fitted to vehicles after manufacturing stage as modifications and the appropriate modifications have not been notified to it, it would consider voiding policies if it believed that bull bars had contributed seriously to the accident. The insurance trade is doing a great deal of research in that area. But there seems to be no way out.
In a letter to me in the early part of this year, the Minister suggested that we have to rely on a European directive which is on its way. I shall not give the figure from memory, but the Minister said that a large number of casualties might result from future accidents in the European Community. But we are informed that the directive is unlikely to come through the machinery of the European Union for at least a decade. Commissioner Neil Kinnock assures us that there is no need to wait for that directive, and that we can act now.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is possible for vehicle owners to be required to inform their insurance companies if they make modifications to their vehicles, especially if the result is to make them less roadworthy. There are regulations which the police and others can, enforce for vehicles in an unroadworthy condition. Given that roadworthiness is designed to protect the road user, which should include bicyclists and pedestrians as much as the person inside, should not insurance companies invalidate insurance if bully bars or injury bars are put on the front of vehicles? Is not it open to Government to say that, unless putting a bull bar or bully bar on the front of a vehicle reduces the risks to other road users, such vehicles are unroadworthy?
Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished record in opposing bully bars, as he rightly called them. The Royal Automobile Club has identified two pieces of legislation which can be used now in order to prosecute owners of vehicles with such bars because they are in an unroadworthy condition. There has been one conviction in the Manchester area. That remedy can be taken up immediately.
The suggestion that there can be some kind of soft bull bar was investigated in several countries. Australian researchers came to the conclusion that it is not possible to design a bull bar which is friendly to pedestrians because even a soft bull bar is more dangerous than a standard vehicle. Regardless of the specific design, severe head and pelvic injuries seem to be the inevitable consequence in a collision with a pedestrian where a bull bar is fitted.
During his period as a Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) told us that one of the great improvements in casualty reduction was achieved by making the front of cars pedestrian—friendly so that the front of the car absorbs the force of the collision by giving. Everyone is at more risk from a bull bar, even the driver of the car and his passengers. The effect of a bull bar is to make the car a more rigid object so that the force of the impact, instead of being taken by the body of the car, is taken by the passengers. There are also other disadvantages.
188
Bull bars certainly pose a greater risk to cyclists and pedestrians. The Pedestrian Association has given me a great deal of information. Pedestrians and cyclists who have written to me feel intimidated by such bars. The psychology of those who add them to vehicles is difficult to understand. They seem to be part of a fashion for having vehicles that look threatening and dominating on the road. They are big and they look aggressive. That fashion has reached unreasonable proportions. A huge number of such vehicles are on the road at the moment, reflecting the growing popularity of bull bars.
Bull bars appear to be a fashion accessory. They in no way add to the safety of vehicles. Not one researcher has come up with the idea that they make a vehicle safer. There is a hallelujah chorus from those with a vested interest in the safety business and other road matters saying that they are highly dangerous and should be banned. The only argument in their favour comes from the farming community. I have already said that a case can be made for their use on farms.
A case can also be made for the jobs provided by the manufacture of bull bars. Nudge bars, as they are called, are manufactured within a few miles of my constituency and almost certainly my constituents are involved in that. One local firm from Gwent has written to the Secretary of State about today's debate. But the interest in those jobs is very much secondary to the interests of future road casualties.
The Minister must tell us today in clear terms what his views are and take this opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement that there is no answer to be found in Europe within the foreseeable future and there is no chance of devising an acceptable bull bar. We know that people will die and hundreds will be injured every month because of the growing fashion for crash bars.
The Government must act now. The Minister has in his hands today the chance to save lives. There is a growing awareness of the danger. I look to local papers, such as the Evening Chronicle (Newcastle) and other papers such as The Independent on Sunday and The Times which have led campaigns on the subject, to highlight every single accident, every death and every serious injury that can be put down to a bull bar. I give an assurance that I will bring to the attention of the House every case that I hear of where a bull bar has resulted in a fatality.
The Minister cannot introduce legislation tomorrow, but he can take the course taken in Manchester, where a man was found guilty of driving a car in a dangerous condition, and ensure that the laws that are there are implemented. Most of all, he can send a clarion call from the House today to warn all those who manufacture bull bars, advertise them or profit from them, who are about to buy them or who already have them on their cars, that the time of such bull bars is limited, that a ban will come in the foreseeable future, so it would be foolish to invest in them now.
We want those who would otherwise choose to have bull bars to avoid the terrible experience that might result. None of us ever expects to collide with a pedestrian but, sadly, it happens. Children run into the road unexpectedly. We want to avoid people suffering the terrible trauma of having the guilt of a death on their consciences and the dreadful agony of bereavement for parents. I ask the Minister to make a clear statement today, not of concern which I know he genuinely has, but of action.
2.16 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on bringing forward this important subject. As he implies, I welcome the opportunity to outline the present position on the subject and to say how we can take matters forward. I am grateful for the contributions from other hon. Members to this necessarily short debate.
The Government are committed to improving all aspects of road and vehicle safety so as to reduce the terrible toll of deaths and injuries on our roads. We have been concerned for some time now that the fitment of bull bars on road-going vehicles will do nothing to help us meet that objective.
Let us be clear. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in his speech, I suspect that the majority of bull bars currently seen on vehicles are fitted as fashion accessories, as he described them. A macho fashion accessory is an adequate description of what they represent. No one denies that in some off-road circumstances they may be of practical value, but few vehicles which carry them are being regularly used in such circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult to see how they provide any worthwhile benefits.
Some bull bars are quite crude in nature and design. I make it clear that such devices can only be detrimental to the safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists who, if they come into contact with a vehicle fitted with such apparatus, will almost certainly suffer more severe injuries. One need only imagine, as has been said, what happens when a child's head comes into contact with a bull bar in the unfortunate event of a collision. Given that both are at the same height, it is not difficult to divine which would come off worse.
The Transport Research Laboratory, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport, West, supports that view. It was asked to carry out impact tests using an instrumented child-size headform and other instrumented impactors on a bull bar, to demonstrate the severity of the possible impact and compare it with the severity of collision with a normal flexible vehicle bonnet. The research showed that, if the fitting of vehicles with bull bars continued unabated, it could result in an extra 35 deaths and 350 serious injuries per annum in the United Kingdom among vulnerable road users.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, because that research was necessarily based on extrapolation from a proportion of the vehicle population, any underestimate of that proportion could mean a higher figure. I believe that he and I—and, indeed, all other hon. Members—agree that, given the current needless loss of life on our roads, which still amounts to nearly 80 deaths a week, we are not prepared to contemplate 35 more deaths and 350 more serious injuries with equanimity.
Because of those findings, our agreement about the seriousness of the issue and our concern about the increasing use of bull bars, we have taken steps to gather evidence of a slightly different nature—evidence of specific injuries caused on the road by bull bars. Sadly, because of the way in which the police collect accident data, until a recent initiative taken by my Department no specific evidence about the impact of bull bars was available.
190
Towards the end of 1993, we asked all police forces to identify specific injury accidents during 1994 involving vehicles fitted with bull bars, using the "special studies" box on the normal STATS 19 accident reporting form that the police must complete for every injury accident. Analysis of the information gathered from that exercise will be used to supplement the earlier Transport Research Laboratory estimates, and I expect the results to be known towards the end of the year. We agree, then, that the problem is serious and that we should do all that we can to end such needless loss of life.
The hon. Member for Newport, West asserted that the Government were dragging their heels. I understand why he should make such an assertion, given the frustration that surrounds the issue; but in no sense are we dragging our heels. -Bull bars are not banned in Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, Sweden or any other safety-conscious country; indeed, the United Kingdom is probably ahead of all the others in recognising the seriousness of the problem. Let me add that, if other Europeans were as aware of the safety problems as we are, we should not have to battle so hard in Brussels to win the safety standards that we all want.
We welcome what has been said by Transport Commissioner Kinnock—a friend of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am delighted to see in his place. I know that he welcomes the elevation of his former right hon. Friend, and sends him his good wishes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Keep it up.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman asks Commissioner Kinnock to "keep it up". No doubt he will ponder that message.
Commissioner Kinnock simply said that, under European law, there was unlikely to be any obstacle to member states' banning bolt-on accessory bull bars. I fear that he actually meant that his directorate, the transport directorate, would experience no difficulty. That is comforting—the same applies to us—but I fear that, as ever when we are dealing with the European Union, it is not the whole story.
This important issue has been raised with me by, for example, Christian Wolmar of The Independent, who—as the hon. Member for Newport, West knows—is rightly concerned. The bull bar itself is not E-marked—marked with a European approval mark, which means that identification of bull bars that are European type-approved would be difficult. Legislation would fail to prevent the use of bull bars on many vehicles, because the more popular vehicles have been type-approved with their optional-bolt-on bull bars fitted at the time of their European type approval. That answers the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Thus, the vehicle and bull bar are, as a whole, European type-approved. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend—who, as usual, has been hugely helpful to Ministers—that the remedy that he offers would not be available in such circumstances.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The most important thing, surely, is to ensure that fewer vehicles have bully bars, to persuade more vehicle owners to remove them and to make people understand that they are a deliberate threat to others. Can my hon. Friend also tell us why, although

191
cars are usually constructed so that they collapse to protect those inside, idiots put hard objects on cars that will kill those outside?
Mr. Norris: I am about to deal with that—but it is an important point, and I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
As I have said, vehicles fitted with bolt-on bull bars have European type approval. I stress that virtually every Member of Parliament—regardless of party or, indeed, absence of party—agrees that the free circulation of European type approved items cannot and should not be impeded within the European Union.
Mr. Flynn: We are aware of the European laws. Under the Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and other legislation, successful prosecutions have already been carried out, and the RAC tells us that legislation already exists in Britain to stop the use of dangerous bull bars on public roads. Why on earth do we not implement that legislation?
Mr. Norris: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman yet again that what he has said is simply not true. Let me assure him unequivocally that, if it were possible to ban such fitments, the Government would not hesitate to do so. The reason why the Government do not do so is that they cannot ban the fitment of items that are
192
in receipt of European type approval as fitments to vehicles, which receive a number of complex European type approvals.
That is a matter of some frustration for the Government, so we have taken two actions. First, we have pressed the virtue of the new directive on pedestrian protection, which we believe is the way to proceed in such matters. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, it has the virtue of concentrating on the softer front, which is an important part of road safety.
Secondly, we have told manufacturers that although we do not have the power to legislate in this area—as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I know that he is a fair-minded man—they have it within their power to take action now. Some have been prepared to do so openly; others have taken note of what we have said. It is an important area and I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to bear it very much in mind.
We will press not only Commissioner Kinnock but the other directorates within the Community to ensure that this valuable aid to reducing road deaths is proceeded with. I strongly anticipate that it will be the British Government, once again, who will be the first to bring about, in due course, the welcome abolition of this accessory.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    House Building
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to stimulate the building of houses suitable for tenants or buyers on lower incomes. [17876]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): My Department has a housing programme of £6.7 billion this year, which goes mainly to provide new social lettings, to renovate existing housing, and to help finance rent rebates for council tenants. We also finance a number of low-cost home ownership programmes.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is that not an appallingly complacent answer from a Minister who knows that in 1979 local councils built 75,600 houses, whereas last year they built just 1,600? Is it not a matter of shame for both the hon. Gentleman and the Government that there are tens of thousands homeless people throughout the country and that people are living in degrading and squalid conditions? Is it not time the Government liberated councils to build the homes that people deserve?
    Mr. Curry: Why is the hon. Gentleman so obsessed with houses being built by councils? What is the difference between a house built by a council, one built by a housing association and one built by the private sector? It shows the Labour party's obsession with state ownership and state development. One of the greatest achievements, among others, of this Government has been to put housing associations in the front line in the development of new homes. That is infinitely better and more flexible than house building by councils.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are about 800,000 empty houses in this country and that councils, especially those under Labour control, have a responsibility to bring them into use? Would that not help those on low incomes?
    Mr. Curry: It is true that there is a large number of empty homes in both the public and the private sectors. We have a housing partnership programme aimed at bringing them into use. It is also true that, if we could get more of them into use, that would make a significant dent in some of the housing problems.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why will the Minister not admit to the true state of housing in Britain today, with house sales last month 14 per cent. down on 1994, 1.25 million home owners trapped in negative equity, repossessions running at 1,000 a week—50,000 a year—councils to all intents and purposes stopped from building new housing, and housing association budgets cut for two years running, thereby reducing the combined output of rented housing by councils and housing associations to the lowest levels since the second world war? Is it not clear that the Government have failed the nation and that they have lost
    194
    the confidence of house builders, tenants and home owners alike, and that they should now make way for a Labour Government who will take housing seriously?
    Mr. Curry: No.

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been sold under right to buy legislation. [17905]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): In England, more than 1.23 million homes have been sold under the right to buy. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is more than 1.6 million.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome those figures. Given the success of providing the right to buy to so many people—with the benefits evident throughout the country both in the physical improvements on council estates and in the wider mix of tenures—will my right hon. Friend consider extending the scheme to all housing association tenants, which is a particular issue in London?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say how much the initiative has been welcomed. Under one or other of the schemes, 235 homes a day in Britain are being bought by tenants who are turning themselves into home owners. That is a remarkable achievement and wholly contrary to the rather pathetic comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). However, we want to improve on that number and I am looking carefully at ways to extend the initiative to other people.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the total raised from council house sales is about £25 billion— close to the total amount raised from all other privatisations? Instead of frittering that money away, why do the Government not invest it in housing? It was the original plan of the housing spokesman of the Tory party to reinvest in housing, but the Government did not do so. As a result, we have homeless children begging in our streets. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of that?
    Mr. Gummer: Far from frittering it away, the first use of that money was to pay back the debts incurred to build the housing in the first place. The second use was to build other houses. The third use was for other local authority purposes. The concept that the money has been frittered away can be accurate only if the local authorities, many of which are controlled by the Labour party, frittered it away: it was their money and they have spent it.
    As a result of the Government's policy on homelessness, fewer than a third of the number of people who were sleeping rough on the streets of London a few years ago do so now. That is the result of spending £129 million on the homeless. The hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts right.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the right-to-buy legislation, many more families have a new pride in the ownership of their property, and that the improvements which they make give new confidence and interest in improvements to those living in neighbouring properties? Does he agree that, at this

    195
    time, many more families should consider the advantage to them which would be gained by applying to buy the property which they rent at present?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in expressing that view of home ownership. It is precisely what the Government have sought to do. Of course, all the 235 families per day who buy their own homes would not have had the chance to do so if the Labour party had been in control. Labour opposed the right to buy at every point and many Labour candidates put the right to buy in their manifestos as something that they would like to stop.

    Contaminated Land
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that the owners of contaminated land make that information available to the public. [17906]
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The contaminated land provisions in part II of the Environment Bill include proposals for local authorities to inspect their areas to identify contaminated land, to assess the seriousness of the contamination using guidelines to be set out by the Secretary of State, and taking into account the advice of the Environment Agency, to decide what should be done by way of remediation.
    Mr. Dowd: Does the Secretary of State agree that if green-field and green-belt sites are to be protected from development, we need better to use brown-field and redevelopment sites, and that gaining public confidence in that redevelopment by fully disclosing information is instrumental in achieving that? Leaving aside the Government's historic bias towards commercial interests over the public interest, are the Government so unworthy of trust that they are unprepared to trust the people with the information?
    Mr. Atkins: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to bring contaminated or brown land back into the development cycle. That is why we have coined the phrase "suitable for use" which we talked about yesterday in the debate on the Environment Bill. I expect that in due course the hon. Gentleman and I will find out the extent of that in Committee. The point is surely that those who have caused the problem, either currently or in the past, or those in the same sort of market, are the ones who need to spend the money to rectify the problem. To allay the concerns of the insurance industry, the banks, and so on, we need to ensure that they believe that "suitable for use" means just that.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's point about public registers, powers in the Environment Bill, which we discussed yesterday, will allow greater disclosure. In any case, local authorities have powers now to check and disclose details of contaminated land to those who are interested.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, consequent on the proposals contained in the draft legislation which was before the House yesterday for Second Reading, it is likely that purchasers and others interested in developing a property will be able to gain the
    196
    information that they require from normal conveyancing inquiries as well as from the usual inquiries with the local authorities?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes.

    Strategic Authority for London
    Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to reinstate a strategic local authority for London. [17908]
    Mr. Gummer: No.
    Mr. Banks: I asked the question more in hope than expectation, but when will the Government drop the dead dogma about London and accept what everyone in the public and private sector is saying—that London desperately needs a strategic authority to run it? Why is such a body good enough for every other capital city in the world, but not for London?
    Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long love of the Greater London council—so much so that he took its various insignia home to look after them at the end of its time—but he must remember that Paris, for example, has no such authority. It is not true, therefore, that every other capital city has one. The mayor of Paris controls an area which is not the whole of Paris by any means. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is the second time that he has been wrong during this Question Time.
    The Government and the Cabinet Committee for London are our strategic authority. We deal with a range of problems throughout London, and the area covered depends on the issue. If one is talking about transport, the old GLC area is far too small. If one is talking about the Thames, it is the wrong shape and the area must go much beyond and below that. If one is talking about the problems of tourism and theatreland one is talking about two or three boroughs in the centre of London. On many of the issues, the sort of strategic authority that the hon. Gentleman wants would have no use and be very expensive and it would be largely opposed by his supporters in the borough councils, who are elected.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the GLC gave London an intolerable bureaucracy, interminable delays and frequent differences of opinion with the London boroughs? Does he accept that outside London people would have looked to the Lord Mayor of London rather than the chairman of the GLC, of whom few, if any, had heard? Does he also accept that, since I became the Member for Hendon, South, I have not received one letter calling for the resurrection of the late and unlamented Greater London council?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has received no letters. After all, in the last five years of the GLC, it put spending up by 170 per cent. when the total increase in the cost of living was 29 per cent., and it had 20,000 staff and a budget of more than £1 billion. It is difficult today to find anything it did which needed doing.
    Mr. Dobson: Why do the Tories refuse to restore to Londoners their right to choose who governs their city? Why do the Government insist on ignoring the views of four out of five Londoners and of the Evening Standard? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that rejection of the rights of Londoners was decided by a Cabinet

    197
    sub-committee which includes the chairman of the Tory party? Is that because the Tories are scared stiff to face the voters of London, just as they are running scared of voters in every other part of the country?
    Mr. Gummer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman managed to read that out word for word because he does not believe it any more than anyone else in the House, which is why he had to have it written down. The fact is that he is wrong on every point. The GLC did little that is discernible for the good of London and cost it a great deal. The needs of London are much better served by dealing with it as it really is. That is why there are elected borough authorities.
    The idea that London—meaning its 32 boroughs—cannot elect its governor can be put forward only by someone who recognises that the Labour party, which runs most of those boroughs, does not act in the interests of the electors but in the interests of the Labour party. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman had to read out his question, lest he be led into the facts, which are that Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey and other examples of Labour London do not give anyone in London any chance to think that it would be better if there were a juggernaut such as the GLC again.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is far better for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to be here entertaining us, rather than being chairman of one of the most profligate local authorities' ever? Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we can expect that great Lutyens building, county hall, to be put to a more profitable use?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that that will happen soon. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the past because it is worth remarking that when the GLC was the so-called "strategic authority for London" it spent only a sixth as much in real terms on the London tube as is spent now that the Government have that role.

    Out-of-town Developments
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to when he will publish his review of planning policy guidance concerning out-of-town developments. [17909]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Before the summer recess.
    Mr. Heppell: How does the Minister plan to convince local authorities and commercial enterprises that the Government are serious about supporting town and city centres when planning guidance still lacks clarity? Does he agree that any out-of-town development is bound to have a serious effect on town and city centres?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I would not absolutely agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, when he said that out-of-town development causes destruction to town and city centres. There is cross-party and local government support for the changes and for PPG6, which shows that local government recognises the positiveness of that report.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an enormous tragedy if we followed the pattern of so many American cities, where all economic
    198
    development has shifted out to new shopping malls in the suburbs and city centres have become an economic vacuum? Does he agree that imaginative planning policies can play an important role in preventing such development from taking place?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I would certainly agree with that. Indeed, there is probably cross-party support on all the points that my hon. Friend has just made.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, apart from out-of-town centres which have already been built, many planning permissions for out-of-town developments are still outstanding and people are concerned that the stable door is being shut well after the horse has bolted? Will the Department review what it can do to help -town centres regenerate and build investment through local authorities and others to push back the tide in favour of town centres, particularly in communities where town centres are already well down the path of decline?
    Sir Paul Beresford: First, given the current number of outstanding planning permissions, the hon. Gentleman's question conveys a sense of doom rather than reality. The reality is very different. Secondly, not only local authorities and planning authorities are involved; the private sector, whose response towards city centres has been very positive so far, is also involved.
    Mr. Vaz: Why does the Minister not have the courage to admit that current planning policy is in a state of complete confusion? No sooner is planning guidance issued than it is ridiculed, criticised, withdrawn and subjected to a fundamental review. Will he assure the House that, once that review is completed, the Government will for the first time have a coherent and clear policy on out-of-town development rather than the current mess?
    Sir Paul Beresford: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at PPG6 and the revision as it comes forward, he will recognise that the whole basis of his question is wrong.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: While welcoming PPG6 and tentative evidence reported in the Estates Gazette last week that relative values and rents in well managed town centres are rising compared with those in out-of-town shopping centres, will my hon. Friend look closely at an application to extend the Merry Hill centre, which would significantly affect surrounding towns such as Kidderminster, Bromsgrove and Worcester?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to comment directly on a particular issue, but his point has been noted.

    Young Single Homeless
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent assessment he has made of the extent of homelessness among young single people in England. [17910]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The assessment of the number of homeless young people and consideration of their housing needs is the responsibility of each local authority.However, in central London the Government's

    199
    rough sleepers initiative has been particularly successful in helping young single homeless people. In November 1994, just two under-18s were found sleeping rough there.
    Mr. Khabra: Has the Minister had time to read the report recently published by Crisis, a leading charity which cares for single homeless people, which shows that rates of tuberculosis among homeless people are comparable with those in third-world countries? Will he establish a working group to combat that danger and to co-ordinate agencies' work with help for homeless people? Does he agree that homelessness has a link with health? If so, what is his Ministry doing in relation to homeless people?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asks me to establish a working group. Such a group was established last year under the leadership of the Department of Health. Furthermore, there is a sub-group on homelessness, on which Crisis has a representative. The report is likely to be available in a couple of months' time.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Labour local authorities collected their rents efficiently and maintained their buildings properly, more houses would be available for homeless people?
    Mr. Jones: Efficient use of existing housing stock is one of the most important strategies that any local authority can pursue. We try to encourage them to pursue, that in every possible way.
    Mr. Betts: Does the Minister agree, however, that outside London the Government have effectively washed their hands of the problem of homeless young people? The Government have altered the housing benefits arrangements so that in many cases young people are not entitled to benefit. At the same time, those people have no alternative but to go into the private sector. Local authorities which could provide housing for them are denied an opportunity to do so because their capital receipts from housing sales cannot be used to build new homes. Does the Minister have one single initiative outside London to offer those people, who are suffering the most appalling housing and other deprivation?
    Mr. Jones: As I have said, responsibility lies with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman is saying that Labour local authorities have washed their hands of the problem. When we judge the housing investment programme submissions of every local authority, we look for evidence that local authorities have proper strategies in place. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising his local authority, he should provide the evidence.

    Conservation (Lewes)
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he plans to visit Lewes to discuss conservation matters. [17911]
    Sir Paul Beresford: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Lewes at present.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend please pass to his right hon. Friend the regrets at that news and the hope that he will be able to accommodate a visit as soon as possible? When he comes, he will be welcome. While there, will he take advantage of that presence to reassure my constituents that the Government have no plans for
    200
    additional dumping of radioactive waste at Beddingham pit in the beautiful Ouse valley south of Lewes? Will he give an assurance that inspectors' reports on the standards maintained at that pit will be published more quickly in the future than they have been in the past?
    Mr. Mackinlay: I suppose the hon. Gentleman thinks that they should stick the waste in a working-class area.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that an application exists to take the load from my hon. Friend's area and to move it to Thurrock. Leaving that to one side, however, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no dumping. There is disposal of very low-level radioactive waste, which comes from one source only—the university. We are talking about things such as gloves and radioactive wrappings. No plans exist to expand on that. I understand that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is working hard to respond to my hon. Friend's last request to speed up reporting.

    Unfit Housing
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in England are unfit for human habitation. [17912]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: According to the statutory definition, in 1991 1.5 million such dwellings existed. Half of those are unfit on only one item, and we estimate that one third of the properties could be made fit for less than £500.
    Mr. Bayley: What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of homes that are unfit for human habitation on the health of people who live in them? Are the Government planning to abolish the mandatory framework for grants, which they introduced in 1989, in their forthcoming housing White Paper? If so, what effect will that U-turn in Government policy have on the health of people condemned to live in houses which are unfit for human habitation?
    Mr. Jones: We have made no decisions yet about the grant regime and have been consulting about that. Several authorities, primarily Labour controlled, have urged me to ensure that we scrap the mandatory grant system, but we have not reached a conclusion about that yet.
    Mr. Sykes: The Minister knows that almost a year has passed since the Richmond hotel, a Department of Social Services hostel in my constituency, was burnt to the ground. Is he aware that there are many such hostels in my constituency, many of which are to the detriment of tourism, which is vital to our prosperity? When will the Minister promise to introduce a scheme to license and regulate those places, so that the unfortunate people who live there can live in safer conditions?
    Mr. Jones: We have consulted on houses in multiple occupation, which are usually termed HMOs. The results are now to hand and we hope to announce our decision before long, once we have pulled those results together.

    Vauxhall Cross (Regeneration)
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help regenerate the area around Vauxhall Cross. [17913]
    Sir Paul Beresford: As the hon. Lady is aware, regeneration is a co-operative activity and I look forward to receiving sensible proposals from Lambeth council, businesses in the area and other local organisations. It may also be helpful to her to know that I was minded to allow the appeal on the Effra site, subject to conditions and planning obligations.
    Ms Hoey: I thank the Minister. Will he welcome the setting up of a Vauxhall employers group and the work that has initially been done on an SRB bid, or whatever the new name is, for the coming year for the Vauxhall Cross district? Will he also welcome the fact that one of the millennium fund bids will be for the recreation of the Vauxhall pleasure gardens in that district? Does he accept that the Vauxhall district, especially around that intersection between roads and railways, has a thriving local community and that anything he can do to bring together and support the partnership which now exists will be extremely welcome?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I look forward to seeing those plans. I am intrigued, as an Edwardian historian has given me a description of the pleasure gardens which raises some rather interesting smirks and question marks.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), can the Minister confirm whether all planning applications for Vauxhall and along the riverside in central London are now as a matter of course brought in for review by his Department, as appears to have been the case in recent months?
    Sir Paul Beresford: No, that is not so. It is selective.

    Council Estate Improvements
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the financial implications for improvement of council house estates by the move from estate action funding to the single regeneration budget scheme. [17914]
    Mr. Curry: About £750 million is expected to be spent through the single regeneration budget in the next three years on estate action commitments. In addition, more than 80 new schemes with significant public and private housing outputs were approved in round 1 of the SRB challenge fund, and will receive about £670 million of investment during their lifetime.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the changeover to SRB, less money is available to deal with problem housing estates? Are the Government not really bothered about helping people who by choice or by necessity live in council houses?
    Mr. Curry: No, I do not accept that, for the following reason. The estate action programmes which are under way will continue and they will see out their life. The new money goes into the challenge process of a single regeneration budget, and the essence of that is that local groups should define their own priorities and needs. Nothing prevents them placing housing at the top of their list of needs. What is more, whereas estate action was a purely physical refurbishment and rebuilding programme,
    202
    under the single regeneration budget it is possible to tackle more than one aspect of housing problems, as the successful SRB bid for Burnley is indeed doing.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the concept of the single regeneration budget is an ideal opportunity for small communities such as that on the Isle of Wight to make application for Government funds, especially in places where local councils and councillors concentrate on local issues? In that respect, will he contrast the statements by the leader of the Liberal Democrats on 10 April 1995 in the Southern Daily Echo, where he said that the elections were about local issues and asked people to please judge the councillors according to their record, with what he said when he crossed the Solent to the Isle of Wight, when he said that the elections were about national issues and asked people to please use a double-barrelled shotgun against the Government? Does he agree that, yet again, the leader of the Liberal Democrats is wedded to and inundated with inconsistency?
    Mr. Curry: I have observed the same phenomenon in the same gentleman.

    London Docklands
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to make an official visit to the London docklands to discuss the prospects for further developments there. [17915]
    Mr. Curry: I will meet the chairman of the board of the London docklands development corporation on 20 June to discuss the draft 1995 corporate plan.
    Sir Michael Neubert: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. Will he confirm that development of London's docklands not only brings long overdue regenerative benefits to east London but materially enhances the potential of our capital city's national assets? In that context, will my hon. Friend lend his support to proposals for a major international exhibition centre at the royal docks to put us on a par with our European rivals?
    Mr. Curry: It is very much the Government's intention to have high-quality development in the east Thames and east London area—the same sort of quality that we would find necessary in any other part of the country. As for the exhibition centre, my hon. Friend will know that the development corporation has nominated a consortium, with which it is negotiating. It has until the end of the year to come forward with a scheme that will stand up in financial terms. We have made it clear that that scheme, which I hope will be successful, must stand up with private finance—there is no public subsidy.

    Global Warming
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to combat global warming, following the Berlin conference. [17916]
    Mr. Gummer: Britain set the pace at the Berlin conference by calling for others to join us in making reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the decade after 2000. This enabled us to take the lead role in producing the Berlin mandate which provides the engine that will

    203
    make such reductions possible. We must work hard now to agree, and to get others to agree, real reductions in 1997.
    Mr. Flynn: While the Minister is entitled to half a cheer for that complacent answer and for the fact that we are one of only three of the primary emitter countries likely to achieve our targets, does he not agree with the Alliance of Small Nations that the conference was a failure because it lacked any political will and the decisions were short sighted? Does he not know that many areas of this country, including many parts of my constituency, lie under the level of high tide and have to be protected by sea walls? Is it not true that the Government are failing, and the conference failed, to come up with new targets for a reduction in the emission of the gases that cause global warming? Is that not a failure to tackle the most serious problem facing our world civilisation?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. It would be good if we occasionally heard from the hon. Gentleman something congratulatory about his own country—on this occasion, we are leading the world. We shall not only meet our obligations in 2000, but do better than that. We are the country that has taken the lead in the European Union. We have got the European Union to put forward the basis of the agreement for the Berlin mandate.
    The facts that the hon. Gentleman quotes are false. The Berlin conference was not a conference to decide on the amounts of reduction, but one to decide on the means by which we would achieve them and to agree that there would be reductions. When we arrived, we found that the United States and many other countries had no intention of signing up to reductions. We managed to bring those countries on board. We have played a key role, and have been helped in that by the support of the Opposition. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman should try to drive a wedge between us. As for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I have the honour to represent a constituency almost all of which will disappear under the sea unless I am successful.
    Mr. Fabricant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the moves that he made to produce the Berlin mandate. I also remind the House that it was Baroness Thatcher who initially proposed the Rio summit, the precursor of the Berlin conference. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not get carried away with the single idea that it is greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Many scientists argue that the cause could be sun spots, and that changes in the earth's core could also have an effect on global warming. May I commend to my right hon. Friend an excellent article that was published in The Spectator a few months ago on that very subject?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was the person who most immediately raised the subject in the political debate, as is natural for a Conservative—concern for the next generation is part of our political creed. My hon. Friend would do better to follow my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher's example than that of the article in The Spectator. The truth is that the work that the Meteorological Office and the Hadley Centre have produced clearly shows that analysing historic evidence gives every indication of the link between the emission of
    204
    greenhouse gases and global warming. At the very least, we have to say that the signs are so strong that it would be wrong and dangerous to ignore them.
    Mr. Bennett: Before the Secretary of State gets too pleased with himself, will he confirm that the Energy Saving Trust originally intended to save 2.5 million tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions but that the Government have so far found no way of financing those savings and enabling the Energy Saving Trust to operate? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?
    Mr. Gummer: I will confirm that we thought originally that we might just reach our target in 2000, and it now looks as though we shall do better than that. Originally, we were not prepared to commit ourselves to reductions after 2000, but we are now committing ourselves to reductions of between 5 and 10 per cent., so long as we can encourage others to work with us, as we are responsible for only 3 per cent. of emissions. The hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that we have done better than we promised, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State agree that the use of cost-benefit analysis in developing policies to combat climate change is, at best, questionable? Is he aware that, as part of the policy development process, economists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently propose to ascribe monetary values to American lives that are 10 times greater than those for third-world lives? Will the Secretary of State unequivocally reject that idea and ensure that it plays no part in any policy negotiation process on climate change?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that I would want to distinguish between the two parts of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that the cost-benefit analysis applied in those circumstances could be extremely helpful. I cannot think of anything else that would demonstrate so clearly the importance of taking the steps that we are taking and the very considerable damage that would be done to many countries around the world if the climate change that seems possible as a result of man's intervention in gas emission were to occur. It is true that any kind of change would prove very costly indeed, so the benefits of avoiding it are extremely worth while.
    I cannot comment on the other matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, but it is quite clear to me that one life is as worthy as another, wherever it may be.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the savings in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have resulted from the increase in electricity production by the nuclear industry? Does he agree that we should promote the greater use of nuclear power within the United Kingdom and that we should support the spread of United Kingdom research overseas in order to establish nuclear power stations in other developed and developing nations?
    Mr. Gummer: I am very proud of the nuclear industry, particularly Sizewell B in my constituency. There are many other ways in which we can ensure that we reduce gas emissions in power production. The fact is that we do not get aught for nowt, and there are disadvantages in all methods of power production. However, we must ensure

    205
    that we produce power with as little damage to the environment as possible. That is the policy of the Government.
    Ms Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Association of Small Island States—the territories most at risk from the threat of global warming—are pressing the developed countries for a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005? Is he further aware that the energy technology support unit of the Department of Trade and Industry believes that a 20 per cent. reduction in energy consumption in Britain is possible with no-regrets policies?
    As the Government have had it so easy to date and as the Secretary of State regards himself as a leader, will he now commit the Government and this country to a 20 per cent. reduction in CO, levels by 2005?
    Mr. Gummer: I am interested to see that Labour party policy has changed on the issue and that the Labour party has evidently committed itself to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005.
    Ms Ruddock: Answer the question.
    Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Lady is asking me to answer the question, no doubt she has already committed her party to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide levels by 2005. She has told the House that such a reduction would be easy and, if it is easy, she clearly wishes to achieve it. Therefore, unless she is prepared to deny in the House that the Labour party intends to go for a 20 per cent. reduction in energy use in this country by 2005, we will have to take that as Labour party policy until there is a public renunciation of her comment. According to the hon. Lady, the target is so easy that it should be accepted. Until I hear something different from her, that is what I shall be saying around the country.

    Gloucestershire County Council (Budget)
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to visit shire hall, Gloucester, in the foreseeable future to discuss the county council's budget. [17917]
    Mr. Curry: None.
    Mr. Knapman: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is unable to visit shire hall in Gloucester, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French)—my right hon. Friend's parliamentary private secretary—will confirm that primary schools in the county are having their budgets cut by an average of between 5 and 6 per cent., and in one case, by 10 per cent., despite an increase in the standard spending assessment permitted spending of 2.6 per cent. My right hon. Friend would also find that grant-maintained schools are being top-sliced by 20.73 per cent., compared with Wiltshire, where the figure is only 16 per cent. In those circumstances, do we not owe it to the pupils of Gloucestershire either to find a more direct and effective means of funding or, sadly, to relax the cap?
    Mr. Curry: I rather think that shire hall will be coming to visit us in the next few weeks, because Gloucestershire is one of the counties which we have designated for capping. Gloucestershire must tell us by the end of the month whether it accepts the cap. No doubt it will wish
    206
    to come and explain. When it does so, the information which my hon. Friend has given will be useful when we discuss the justification for the budget.
    Mr. Nigel Jones: The Minister will be aware that Gloucestershire county councillors will be meeting on Monday to decide whether to appeal against the cap. Is he also aware that the budget that the council has set increases the council tax by nothing at all? It is a standstill council tax. Will he be open to persuasion by the councillors when they come to appeal to have the cap relaxed?
    Mr. Curry: I hope that the county will set a budget at the cap that we have indicated. The council has the right to argue why it should be permitted to set a budget higher than the cap. When, and if, the nine local authorities involved come to argue their cases, we shall listen to what they have to say, and we shall ask some searching questions as well. At the end of the process, we shall decide whether to meet the budget that the councils have set, or whether we believe that a different figure would be appropriate.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why does the Minister think that he and his Government colleagues have a monopoly on the wisdom? It is not simply Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled councils but Tory councils in Gloucestershire, Shropshire and other capped authorities which think that the Government have got it wrong. Why does not the Minister accept that the levels set for Gloucestershire and other counties are far too low to sustain decent services? The Government, not county councillors, should think again.
    Mr. Curry: That doctrine is rather more dangerous in practice than it sounds in theory. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that local levels of taxation and local authority expenditure should be set entirely unilaterally by the authorities without the Government taking any view of what is a proper amount in the interests of the economy as a whole. That is a doctrine which even the Labour party would not wish to sustain if it ever came into office.
    All Governments must take a view on the total volume of public expenditure. Local authorities contribute a quarter to that, and it is entirely proper that we should determine what we believe to be a sensible level for local authority expenditure while providing the means for authorities to argue why, in particular circumstances, they may need more or that their amount is incorrect. That is a process that we shall undertake over the next few weeks.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken within his Department to support his sponsorship of the construction industry. [17918]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department enhanced its capacity and focus for the sponsorship of the construction industry at the end of 1993.
    Among other things we have: established with the industry the construction procurement group to help to reduce the UK's trade deficit in construction products; set up the construction benchmarking challenge under which my Department provides financial assistance towards the establishment of four benchmarking clubs; boosted the practical help that we give to UK construction companies

    207
    which wish to pursue business overseas. Ministers led six trade missions in 1994 covering 11 countries; and, most importantly, my Department co-sponsored with the industry Sir Michael Latham's report, "Constructing the team", on the procurement and contractual arrangements of the UK construction industry. My Department has also helped set up the Construction Industry Board to implement the recommendations of the report.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the help that he has given to the construction industry. He will be aware that the Latham report published last year was warmly welcomed by the industry. One of the main recommendations of the report was a construction contracts Bill to oversee standard contract conditions and payment terms. When will the consultation paper for that Bill be published so that we can get that much-needed measure on the statute book?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on being the first Member of Parliament in nine months to ask an oral question on the construction industry. That issue is extremely important for the whole industry and we will make sure, provided that there is consensus in the industry, that legislation is brought forward. I shall keep my hon. Friend informed.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister accept that there is wide consensus on the Latham proposals for legislation and for the construction industry Bill? Can the. Minister make a commitment to bring forward such legislation? What discussions has he had with colleagues in other Departments—particularly the Department of Trade and Industry—on whether they also will support legislation?
    Mr. Jones: We consult all interested parties. At the moment, there is consensus in the industry and the Government have made it clear that we will be prepared to countenance legislation, provided that there is consensus on its form and impact.

    Council Housing Repairs
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that councils repair properties promptly. [17919]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: On 1 April 1994, we introduced the new right-to-repair scheme, which requires councils to carry out repairs covered by the scheme quickly.
    Mr. Butler: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, and many tenants welcome the right-to-repair scheme. I invite my hon. Friend to comment on the inordinate and unnecessary delay between tenancies, when properties remain empty for weeks and sometimes months because of incompetent and inefficient local authorities. They are mainly Labour-controlled but, to be fair, some are Liberal-controlled. They seem incapable of having repairs made properly, partly because of their obsession with using direct labour organisations. Can anything be done to reduce waiting lists while cutting the number of empty properties?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are keen to see through the housing investment programme evidence that local authorities are managing their existing housing stock properly. That includes making sure of a quick turnover of properties between
    208
    tenants. If my hon. Friend has particular instances in mind, I will be pleased to see that they are raised when considering each local authority's HIP round.

    Council Tax Arrears
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the council tax arrears for each inner London borough; and if he will make a statement. [17922]
    Mr. Gummer: Council tax arrears for the 12 inner London boroughs at 31 March 1994 totalled £95 million. The worst council was Lambeth with £29.6 million arrears. The four worst local authorities nationally were all in inner London—Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and Southwark.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that Labour-controlled inner-London councils are about as effective as a dying duck in a thunderstorm, will my right hon. Friend consider the advice that he might give the people of Dartford on how to avoid the nightmare of Lambeth?
    Mr. Gummer: Dartford is one of the councils with an extremely good record of debt collection, and therefore is able to provide for council tax payers and others living in the borough an extremely good service at a reasonable price. The answer is clear. If one wants authorities of the sort found in inner London, such as Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and Southwark, vote Labour. If one wants a decent authority, such as Dartford, vote Conservative.

    Local Authority Staff
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of delegated legislation on the numbers of staff employed by local authorities in each of the last three years. [17924]
    Mr. Curry: Changes in requirements arising from transfers of responsibilities, as well as changes in costs through efficiency, are discussed with local authority associations. The consequences for staffing is a matter for councils.
    Mr. Steen: Is not the whole problem that we pass legislation and expect local authorities to observe the duties that we impose on them, without properly working out how much money they need? Surely the right way forward is a cost compliance assessment of all legislation passed, such as yesterday's Environment Bill, so that we do not impose on local authorities duties that they cannot afford to observe. Is that not the nub of the problem?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a constant demand that we entrust local authorities to do more. There are complaints whenever it is suggested that we are asking them to do less. It is important, therefore, that when they get new responsibilities the costs of them are evaluated properly. We undertake such evaluations with the local authority associations. The SSA system is designed to enable that to be done. If responsibilities are transferred within Government, transfers will follow that. We are following my hon. Friend's injunction.

    Carbon Monoxide Emissions
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current initiatives his Department is

    209
    following to lessen carbon monoxide emissions in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [17925]
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published in January a statement of the Government's strategic policies for air quality management.
    On the basis of those policies, national emissions of carbon monoxide are expect to drop by 36 per cent. by 2000 and by 56 per cent. by 2010, compared with present levels.
    Mr. Llwyd: Is not the Minister being rather complacent? Surely it is time that the Government grasped the nettle and considered what is happening in other countries. For example, there is limited use now of private vehicles in Athens. Is it not time that the Government stopped slapping their own backs and saying that they are doing something, and started getting on with the job? We all know that pollution comes from conurbations, where often there is only one person in each car. Let us get better public transport and see an end to all that.
    Mr. Atkins: Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is being complacent if he does not understand the facts of life in the context at least of air quality. The most recent figures available to us show that the World Health Organisation's standards of one hour, 30 minutes or 15 minutes on, carbon monoxide were not exceeded anywhere in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman heard in my first answer, the future is just as bright.

    Housing Association Dwellings
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the ability of those on low incomes to afford the rent of new housing association dwellings. [17926]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The most recent analysis of affordability carried out by the Housing Corporation for the year 1992–93 demonstrates that, on average, tenants spent approximately 10 per cent. of their net income on rent for a newly completed housing association dwelling. Tenants who are in work spent approximately 18 per cent. of their net income on rent.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the Minister accept that the reduction of housing association grant to levels that even the Association of Mortgage Lenders describes as unrealistic means that many new housing association dwellings are now being let or put on offer at over £70 a week, which means that they are unaffordable for people who are not eligible for housing benefit? Is not the shift of subsidy from bricks and mortar to means-tested benefit leading to more dependency? Is that not proving more costly to the public purse in the long run?
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Of course there is a relationship between the subsidy to bricks and mortar, which on average is just under 60 per cent., and the subsidy to individuals through housing benefit. Naturally enough, where the two meet there is likely to be a problem in terms of a poverty trap. That is something that we keep under constant review. There has been no shortage of projects coming forward under the present rates. I should
    210
    point out to the hon. Lady that all but 2 per cent. of the fall in housing association grant rates has been accounted for by falls in procurement costs.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a problem? I sit on the board of the Templar Housing Society Ltd., which is implementing—it says that it is forced to do so—an increase in rents of about £34 to £35 a month. Representations have been made to me by people on the state retirement pension, who have had only a small pension increase. They say that the increase in their housing costs are likely to exceed any increase in the old-age pension. Will not my hon. Friend consider these matters a little more carefully, perhaps understand that there is a problem and say that he will consider it? Perhaps I can write to him about the housing society of which I am a member.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is welcome to write to me at any time about any subject that falls within my responsibilities. It sounds to me, from the instance that he gave, as if he is talking about pensioners with private pensions in addition to their state pension. We keep those matters under review, and, as I said during the last Environment Question Time, we are in contact with other interested Departments, including the Department of Social Security, about the interplay between housing benefits and HAG rates.

    Propaganda Expenditure
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the spending of money by councils on propaganda. [17927]
    Mr. Curry: I am against it.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that, immediately after the Lib-Lab pact took over Kent county council, it diverted £100,000 of the education funding to a propaganda campaign against grant-maintained schools in the county? Is he further aware that, when I asked it how much that had cost to date, because we are two years on, it refused to divulge that figure, which may now be as high as £250,000? Does he not think that that money would be far better spent on the education of our children?
    Mr. Curry: There is a real problem with the ability of district auditors in particular to keep an effective check on local authority expenditure. The rules are quite clear on what local authorities can spend money in terms of information and propaganda. The trouble is that it depends on citizens bringing a complaint to the district auditor, and then the investigation takes place retroactively. That causes some difficulties, and it would be worth while, seeing, without in any way compromising the independence of the auditors, how we could give local people a more effective survey of the way in which the local authority spends money in their name.
    Mr. Skinner: Does not the Government spend a lot of money on propaganda as well? A question costs about £100 to answer, and if the Minister studies the Order Paper for any given week, he will find that, as more than

    211
    50 Tory Members of Parliament ask planted questions, more than £5,000 is being spent by the Government to give out information on their own behalf.
    Mr. Curry: In that case, it is rather curious that, whenever we answer an Opposition question by saying that it would cost a disproportionate amount to answer, Opposition Members get very indignant.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no standard spending assessment for local authority information departments and therefore that any money that local authorities spend on propaganda, or, indeed, information officers or press officers, is spent at the cost of the resources to other services? If county councils have that as their priority, their priority is not providing front-line services.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. We think that it is quite right that local authorities should inform their electorates of what they are doing. That is a perfectly proper activity. Indeed, if the information is not given, it is difficult to assess the performance. We wish local people to be able to assess the performance of local authorities. We have done a great deal to place before people more evidence of performance, but at the end of the day we must depend on the good sense and integrity of local authorities to draw a sensible line between what really is information to the electorate and what is nothing less than propaganda. As I said in a previous answer, I' am not yet satisfied that that line is drawn sharply or clearly enough.

    Water and Sewerage Charges
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the current year's price increase for water and sewerage. [17928]
    Mr. Atkins: The price increases will enable water companies to continue their investment programmes to fulfil their legal obligations to meet improved water quality and environmental standards.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that this year's price increase will take more than 30 per cent. of this year's benefit increase and will therefore put people, particularly those who are on low incomes and benefit, in
    212
    even more hardship than they were before? Will he take the opportunity today to urge water companies around the country to give a payback to their customers for the price increases over inflation that they have imposed on them, as North West Water has done this year? Will he suggest that all other water companies in the country follow its example?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to congratulate my own regional water company, North West Water, on the results of its efficiencies and the effects of privatisation, which have done so much, and on offering a payback to my constituents and to many other payers. I would encourage every other water company to do the same as North West Water. The hon. Lady made a point about the more vulnerable members of society, and I join her in encouraging water companies to pay as much attention as possible to the needs of those people in terms of the schemes that they offer for the payment of water costs, and where necessary in providing cheap water meters.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister approve of the decision of Anglian Water to raise charges for people who are not receiving metered supplies but to hold down the price that is charged to people receiving metered supplies, or do the Government approve of that effort to blackmail people into taking water meters that they would not otherwise want?
    Mr. Atkins: As many hon. Members will understand, the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate what is involved in the setting of water charges. He benefits, in the Thames region, from one of the best and cheapest supplies of water anywhere in the United Kingdom. Water companies throughout the United Kingdom invest a lot of money. They appreciate that the quality of water has to be improved as a result of directives from the European Union. All that costs money, which must come from the customer as well as the marketplace.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statement.
    Mr. Steen rose—
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry, it is too late now. It is 3.30 pm.

Stormont Fire (Doyle Report)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the report by Sir Reginald Doyle on the fire which took place on 2 January 1995 at Parliament buildings, Stormont, and the implications of that incident for fire safety precautions at other Crown buildings in Northern Ireland.
I have this morning placed copies of Sir Reginald's report in the Library of the House, and in the Vote Office.
Although I am glad to note that Sir Reginald has concluded that the overall standard of staff safety in Crown buildings is generally satisfactory, his report points up serious shortcomings, both in relation to the Parliament buildings fire itself and to wider procedures dealing with fire safety matters. Several of his findings are deeply disturbing, and I am determined to address the shortcomings in the most serious manner.
Sir Reginald's view is that the most likely cause of the fire at Parliament buildings was an electrical fault in the wiring below the Speaker's chair in the Commons chamber. He considers that it is improbable that the fire was started deliberately. His conclusion on the cause of the fire is in accordance with the findings of the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory, assisted by an, independent electrical consultant.
A number of matters relating to the fire give me very serious concern. First, the watchkeepers in Parliament buildings did not detect the fire and incorrectly attributed an unusual smell to new lagging on heating pipes.
Secondly, part of the first floor of the building was not patrolled because one section was subject to restricted access from 1992 as it had been set aside for political talks.
Thirdly, there was no water supply to the fire hydrant system at Parliament buildings when the fire broke out owing to a valve at the Stormont reservoir having been closed, despite the fact that non-availability of water had been reported 18 days before the fire to the Department of the Environment staff.
Fourthly, over a period of nearly five years, there was no fire drill in Parliament buildings even though there was official guidance that a fire drill should be carried out at least once every 12 months.
Finally, some fire brigade appliances did not approach the building by the agreed access—Massey avenue—but approached it by the Upper Newtownards road entrance, which was locked on 2 January 1995 as that date was a public holiday. I shall deal with those in turn.
The watchkeepers have been interviewed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Reginald Doyle and their personnel officer in the Department of Finance and Personnel. They reported that on their regular patrols of the building they found no evidence of fire. Their written instructions are being revised with regard to the timing of patrols, the reporting of unusual circumstances and access to all parts of the building.
Further investigations have shown that, in addition to part of the first floor being inaccessible, the Commons chamber itself has customarily been regarded by the watchkeepers as outside their remit because it was normally locked. It is clearly wrong that any portion of
214
the building should have been inaccessible to the watchkeepers. This has been rectified, and the management of the entire building has now been made the responsibility of a single Department, the Department of the Environment.
As for the absence of water in the fire hydrant system, it is clear that no action was taken to seek out the cause and to restore the supply following reports on 15 December 1994 that the system was dry. Three officials have been reprimanded. In addition, the Department of the Environment has reminded the contractor and the consultant responsible for the current contract at Parliament buildings of their continuing obligations in respect of maintenance of existing services and installations during the period of the contract. Sir Reginald notes that, by chance, the lack of water at the building was not a significant issue, owing to the prompt action of the fire brigade.
On the question of fire drills, there can of course be difficulty in setting a convenient date for a trial evacuation in a building that is often used for meetings with the public, but a gap of five years is inexcusable. It indicates that fire precautions were not accorded proper priority by management in Parliament buildings. I have taken steps to ensure that those responsible for these matters in all Crown buildings in Northern Ireland are in no doubt about their responsibilities, and of my continuing concern that those responsibilities are properly exercised. An accelerated training programme for premises officers is being implemented by the works service of the Department of the Environment; Departments have been reminded of their obligation to comply with the fire precautions guide, which provides advice on fire safety matters. Some aspects of the guide require revision or clarification, and that work has been initiated.
On the question of access, the fire brigade has been reminded of the agreed access route. Sir Reginald finds that, in the event, the resulting delay amounted to less than one minute.
The cost of restoring the Commons chamber as it was is estimated at about £1.5 million. I have authorised the Department of the Environment to proceed with the work, which will be part of a general refurbishment of Parliament buildings extending over two years at a cost of £20 million.
It is clear from the report that fire safety precautions have simply not been given a sufficiently high priority. As Secretary of State, I greatly regret that. Sir Reginald notes that at the time of the fire a refurbishment scheme for Parliament buildings had been under way since February 1994, concentrating on health and safety and fire precaution work. That programme had been extracted from a more extensive and general programme identified in the mid 1980s, but delayed first because of the need to relocate DOE staff into other accommodation and latterly because of other financial priorities.
Obvious difficulties are involved in arranging the refurbishment of aging but heavily used public buildings, but I accept that Government are responsible for doing it in order to ensure proper health and safety standards. Sir Reginald comments that fire safety work, once identified as necessary, should be carried out as a matter of urgency and should not be allowed to wait until it can be incorporated in a wider refurbishment scheme. I accept

215
that, and have made it clear to all Departments that health and safety provision is of such fundamental importance that it must merit high priority in expenditure plans.
I have accepted all Sir Reginald's recommendations, and have instructed a senior official in the Department of the Environment to ensure their urgent implementation and report progress to me on a quarterly basis. A task force under his chairmanship has been established, and has already met on three occasions.
Sir Reginald indicates that the overall standard of staff safety in Crown buildings provided by fire alarms, escape routes, the protection of escape routes, fire extinguishers, hose reels and other means is generally satisfactory. However, he considers that the legislation for Crown buildings is not satisfactory, and recommends alternative informal safeguards to ensure that Crown buildings comply with the standards set out in the Fire Services Order (NI) 1984. That recommendation is accepted, and applications for all certifiable buildings are being submitted on an accelerated—but also prioritised—basis. The objective is to have complete certification coverage within two years. A comprehensive and definitive list of all Crown buildings requiring certification is being compiled.
For the protection of the fabric of buildings, modern fire detection systems will be installed on a phased and, prioritised basis in buildings where it is considered necessary. In addition, an urgent review has been initiated to identify buildings in which the installation of sprinklers or gas flood systems might be justified.
I am grateful to Sir Reginald Doyle for his report, which I believe will lead—through the implementation of his recommendations—to a general improvement in fire safety arrangements in all Crown buildings in Northern Ireland.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I want to express our thanks for the courage and professionalism of those who tackled the blaze, especially the police and the firefighters. We are greatly relieved that the fire did not result in loss of life.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the recommendations in the report, which is deeply disturbing. I am pleased that he is determined to address the shortcomings in policy. I am equally pleased that he accepts that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure proper health and safety standards. It is sad that it has taken a fire to make those policy shortcomings transparent.
It is clear from Sir Reginald Doyle's comments that the Government's responsibility to protect public property and individual safety has been neglected in Northern Ireland. The exemption of Crown properties from the formal obligations under the Fire Services Order (Northern Ireland) 1984 should not stop the Government ensuring that buildings are kept up to the necessary standards. At a minimum, those standards require adequate means of escape for staff, means for ensuring that the escape can be used at all material times, means of giving warning and means of firefighting.
As the Secretary of State explained, the fire probably went undetected for as long as eight hours, the staff patrol bypassed the area, the new detection system was not connected and there was no water supply at the hydrants.
216
The alarm and firefighting provisions at Stormont castle were inadequate at the time of the fire and it is clear that the minimum standards were not complied with.
I want to ask four specific and direct questions. First, the report refers to the Government's review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the report said that there was
"no reason why the Government should not announce that in future fire precautions legislation"
will apply to Crown properties. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House why the Government have made no specific response to that recommendation, which was made last summer? Will he now make it clear to the House that none of the more than 1,000 Crown buildings in Northern Ireland will be immune from fire and health and safety regulations?
Secondly, the Secretary of State announced that he will publish a quarterly report, to be produced by the Department of the Environment, on the implementation of Sir Reginald's recommendations. At the same time, will he tell us the date on which he will publish a list of all the Crown buildings requiring certification? Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommend the reallocation of funds within the Department of Economic Development to respond to the four-year backlog of buildings waiting to be inspected?
Finally, the report also refers to the lack of awareness of contractors about where their specific responsibilities lay. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government's policy for restructuring Departments and for contracting out services has led to confusion and a lack of transparency and accountability between those who make policy and those who implement it? What recommendations will he make to alleviate that chaos?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to those who tackled the fire so extremely effectively. As Sir Reginald Doyle pointed out, it was only their very prompt action that saved the building from much worse damage, because there was no water in the hydrants. I am also grateful for the hon. Lady's endorsement of the Government's approach to this serious report.
The hon. Lady referred to exemptions for Crown buildings from the Fire Services Order (Northen Ireland) 1984, which is the legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. It relates to the first of her specific questions. There are difficulties inherent in applying that legislation, with its sanctions, to Crown buildings. These are matters of policy for the Home Secretary in Great Britain and for me in Northern Ireland and I should like to reflect on the matter and consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the quarterly report that I mentioned and about the progress being made by the task force. I did not say that I would publish the quarterly reports and I do not think that to do so would be necessarily appropriate. What is important is that they are made quarterly, because regular progress and regular monitoring are necessary.
I believe that the third of the hon. Lady's questions—she will correct me if I am wrong—was about the list of buildings that have acquired certification. I have said that our target is that work on the whole backlog shall be

217
completed in two years. Of course I shall be perfectly prepared at any time to answer questions about the progress that is being made.
The hon. Lady's last question was about contractual obligations. I am not aware of any standard form of contractual obligation. I am given to understand that in this case there was a clear contractual obligation to maintain existing services on the part of the consultant and the contractor. As I have said to the House, each has been reminded of the importance of those obligations during the currency of the contract.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I join the Secretary of State in thanking Sir Reginald Doyle for a useful and thorough report and, on a personal level, for the courtesy that he extended to me when I provided him with evidence and proposals. I also join the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), in congratulating the RUC and in particular the fire brigade, whose professionalism stemmed the spread of the fire.
I welcome three things that the Secretary of State said in his statement. First, I welcome the undertaking that he is determined to remedy the shortcomings. Will he specifically state whether he is prepared to do so immediately in financial terms? We need more fire inspectors on the ground to reduce the length of time that it will take to inspect all Crown buildings. We need the resources to make the necessary changes to Crown buildings that the inspection report identified.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that he intends to restore the Commons chamber at Stormont. Will he confirm that it will be restored as closely as contractually possible to its former glory with all, let us say, the British trappings that it had previously? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he says that fire precautions were not given sufficiently high priority, it was because complacency had trickled down from the highest level to produce the incompetence that the report suggests?
For more than 18 months I have raised issues relating to fire safety in Crown buildings. They have been virtually ignored at the very highest levels. If heads are to roll on Stormont lawn, let there be some easily recognised heads among them.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to Sir Reginald Doyle and to the RUC and the fire brigade. That will be much appreciated. I also welcome what he had to say in the remainder of the first part of his question. He asked whether there would be practical expression of my determination to see the recommendations fulfilled, whether resources would be made available. The answer is yes, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient resources are available to fulfil what I have said. In particular, we intend to recruit an additional four ex-fire brigade officers to the fire inspection branch of the work service which has these responsibilities.
It is appropriate for me to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the assiduity with which over a considerable period he has raised the safety of staff in the context of fire precautions. He will, I know, be as glad as I am that Sir Reginald has made the general finding that he has on the safety of staff—that it was generally satisfactory throughout the Government estate. However, that is not to underestimate the criticisms that have been made. As the Secretary of State, I of course take
218
responsibility for that. It is of great importance that the problems should be rectified. It is of great value that we have a report of this thoroughness.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Although the work of the emergency services in rescuing the building from a terrible fire was remarkable, was there not an appalling level of laxity in the management and care of the buildings, which is all the more worrying when security risks have meant that heightened awareness has been necessary all the time? In looking forward to the refurbishment of the building and its occupation by a democratic assembly serving the people of Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State also look forward with some confidence to a building that will be looked after properly and with a continued level of awareness of risk appropriate- to its importance and to the dangers to the people using it?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the services. Naturally, there have been shortcomings in the management of the Parliament buildings. In part, that has been due to a division of responsibility. As from noon today, the Department of the Environment has attained full responsibility for the management of that building. That division led to the misunderstandings and lack of communication that were apparent in the instructions to the watchkeepers and their understanding of those instructions, for example.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about the chamber enables me to reply to one of the questions of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which I omitted to do. It is my intention to restore the chamber to its former position and state, but that will be subject to representations that parties—whether political or otherwise—may make to me, especially in the context of a possible assembly, which everyone hopes will come into being. That is the contingent intention, but it is open to that qualification. I believe that, as a result of this inquiry, we shall have a much tighter management, which is desirable for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave.
Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his swift response in accepting full responsibility for this report and the events that led up to the fire? May I also add that it is entirely characteristic of my right hon. and learned Friend to accept the blame and not to duck it in any way? When does he expect the work to start?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To be perfectly frank, there are not many grounds for congratulation in this story, but she has characteristically found one—perhaps the only one. The work on restoration of the Commons chamber is already under way and I am told that the refurbishment programme for the whole of Parliament Buildings should take about two years.
Mr. John D. Taylor: May I declare an interest, Madam Speaker, as chairman of a company that owns one of the properties listed in the report? The Parliament building at Stormont is of importance in Northern Ireland and of architectural and historical interest. It is also a listed building. Hon. and right hon. Members who have visited it cannot but be impressed at the entire building and its location and setting outside Belfast.

219
I join other hon. Members in placing on record our thanks to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland fire brigade for their prompt attention to the fire. It should be placed on record that the fire brigade was called at 9.5 in the morning. Even with the difficulties presented to it, the brigade gained access and was on the spot at 9.12.
We have heard that the fire might well have been caused by an electric wire under the Speaker's chair. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman conclude that there was no criminal or terrorist-related involvement in the fire? If so, can he confirm whether all the workmen involved in the work in the Chamber at the time were screened? The fire was detected by a member of the public at 8.50 in the morning. The patrol within the building had checked it only 30 minutes beforehand, yet the fire had been going for some eight hours. It seems most unusual that the patrol had not observed a fire that had been smouldering away for eight hours but that a member of the public out for a walk with his dog should have noticed it outside.
We now hear that one reason why the security patrol within the building did not observe the fire was that it was not allowed to enter parts of the building because of political talks going on in that section of the building. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the security patrol within the building walked along the corridor that passes the main door into the House of Commons chamber? That is the key question. How close did they get to the location of the fire?
It is outrageous that no fire drill had taken place for the past five years in Parliament buildings at Stormont, and it is incredible that that is confirmed in the report. There has certainly been a degree of incompetence. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) had a question listed on yesterday's Order Paper asking whether the chamber would be restored and the estimated price of that restoration. Unfortunately, that question was not answered, but we have had the reply in today's statement. As the Secretary of State knows the estimated cost, he must have some idea about the design for the new chamber. Will it be designed to accommodate a parliament, a legislative or administrative assembly, or a regional authority? He must be in a position to answer that question.
Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is not a debate. It is questions to the Secretary of State on his statement and I should be grateful if he would come to some pertinent questions so that we might hear a response from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Taylor: I am trying to find out what kind of chamber will be rebuilt now that the Secretary of State has confirmed that it will be restored.
I shall move on to the subject of the lack of fire certificates for Crown buildings throughout Northern Ireland. Why will it not become a legal requirement that Crown buildings have fire certificates, as private owners in Northern Ireland must have? In that connection, I refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 10.4 on page 53 of the report, which says that sufficient resources do not exist and that it will take at least four years for the buildings to be examined.
220
That means that civil servants will have to work in dangerous conditions for many more years, because, even after the four years, the work must then be carried out. In relation to paragraph 10.14, why cannot the fire brigade in Northern Ireland be responsible for inspecting Crown buildings and deciding on the issue of fire certificates, rather than retaining that power within the Department of the Environment?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the services. He asked whether I had definitely concluded that the fire was accidental rather than deliberate. I can go only on the evidence that has been given to Sir Reginald and on his conclusion, which is set out at paragraph 3.5.9, that it is improbable that the fire was started deliberately. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the photograph of wiring beneath or close to the Speaker's chair, the insulation of which appears to have been eroded, and the course that the fire took is consistent with that. I can go no further than that of my own knowledge.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the workmen engaged in the refurbishment scheme, which had been going on since February 1994, had been screened. I am told that each workman had been screened for security clearance. He also asked whether the watchkeepers walked past the door. I understand that that was the evidence given to Sir Reginald, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that Sir Reginald also says that the fire broke out in the one room or chamber in Parliament buildings least likely to result in a warning being made apparent to people because it had no open windows and the doors were very close-fitting.
Reference is made to the fact that the doors, being so stout and close-fitting, confined the fire's spread. It is a remarkable feature of the story, however, that those watchkeepers did not notice, over a period apparently of some eight hours, that a fire was going on. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that they attributed a curious smell to some lagging that had been placed on pipes. I cannot take the matter further than that.
I have already dealt with the design of the restored Commons chamber. I do not want to add to anything that I have said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). On certification, the position is—I think I have this correct—that Crown buildings must have a certificate, but no legal requirement exists for an application for such a certificate to be made under the Fire Service Order (Northern Ireland) 1984. I am, of course, prepared to consider the legislation following what Sir Reginald and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) have said about that matter. The important thing is that certification is carried out. That has been the practice, albeit with insufficient sense of urgency, as I must concede.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I have already said that it is not a question of four years being the target. He referred to paragraph 10.4 of the report. I have said that the target for total certification of the Government estate is two years.
Mr. Mark Robinson: It may be belated, but the Doyle report is still extremely welcome by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. and learned Friend just clarify that he intends to implement all the report's recommendations?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Secretary of State, as a UK Cabinet Minister, care to speculate as to how many people in Scotland and England who are responsible for Government buildings muttered under their breath sotto voce, when they heard of the Stormont fire, "There but for the grace of God went we"?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Fortunately, I have enough responsibilities without acquiring responsibility for this place. I do not want to take that matter any further.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he had to read to us a most disturbing catalogue of errors and omissions? Does he perhaps think that, in recent years in Northern Ireland, it has been necessary for security to take such a high priority that other matters have been subordinated to it?
Has my right hon. and learned Friend ever heard in Northern Ireland a local resident say to him, "Things are different over here, Minister"? Does he agree that that must not mean that standards are lower? In groping to find some way to ensure that standards are the same throughout the UK, might it be appropriate to have a slightly higher level of roulement between officials and inspectors in the UK to ensure that standards are uniformly high?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend makes a most interesting suggestion. Of course, the House remembers his long experience as a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland. It is important that Northern Ireland's standards should be no less satisfactory than those in the rest of the UK. This Administration intend to ensure that that is the case. I do not know whether the lifeline that he threw me—the need for concentration on security—has led to the laxity. All that has to be said, grateful though I am, is that that laxity has ended and must never be allowed to return.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Secretary of State? As responsibility for fire protection has gone to the Department of the Environment, is he satisfied that it is able to deal with that, bearing in mind that some of us are concerned that departmental officials' guidance to local councils on fire regulation standards in new building is still being debated?
May I press the Secretary of State on the concept of finances? I recognise that he may not be able to give me the answers today, but will he tell us—the answer may even be available in the Library—the amount of money returned from the Northern Ireland budget at a time when not enough money was available to deal with recommendations to protect from fire? Will he tell us how that now compares with the amount that the nation will have to spend on repairing the damage?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I wish to look at the point with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question. I want to give him an assurance that both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), and I will closely consider the Department of the Environment and its capacity to undertake those very important responsibilities.

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of which I have given you and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs notice. It relates to the proceedings of Standing Committee B on immigration and border controls on 22 March 1995, and the way in which the motion that was agreed by that Standing Committee was unilaterally amended, without advance notice being given to the House or to hon. Members attending the Committee by the Home Secretary.
That is a slightly complicated issue, as you know, Madam Speaker. I shall do my best to deal with it briefly.
The 29th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended that the issue of European immigration and border controls was so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government chose, for reasons of their own, not to debate it here but instead to send it upstairs to Committee. There, on 22 March, a vigorous debate did take place. A motion tabled by my hon. Friends was defeated by six votes to seven, and the Government motion was approved without Division.
Everyone assumed, in the terms of the face of Standing Order No. 102, that that motion, approved by Standing Committee B, would come before the House unamended and would then be voted on forthwith.
On 6 April, the day after the House had risen, I received in my mail—and I was there when it was opened—a letter from the Home Secretary's private secretary, to say that the Home Secretary had decided to amend the motion of Standing Committee B in three particulars.
Because of the way in which the letter from the private secretary is phrased, I assumed at least that I and other Members attending that Committee would be given advance notice of the Government's intention, but I subsequently discovered that the amended motion had been tabled on the Order Paper on 4 April, and had been nodded through without debate on 5 April.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Where were you?
Mr. Straw: The Whip asks, where was I? In spite of the fact that I assiduously check the Order Paper every day, there was absolutely no indication on the Order Paper that the motion from Standing Committee B had been amended in the way that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had proposed.
My point of order to you, Madam Speaker, is as follows. First, is it in order for Ministers to act in that way, unilaterally amending motions from Standing Committees? Secondly, even if it is in order, would you agree that it is unacceptable to treat hon. Members in the way that the Home Secretary treated hon. Members on both sides of the House, by ensuring that no hon. Member was given notice until after the motion had gone down? Lastly, would you accept that, if that practice is ever exercised again, there must be on the face of the Order Paper a clear indication that the Government are changing the terms of the Standing Committee's motion?
Madam Speaker: The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is covered by Standing Order No. 102(9).

223
What has happened in this case may be unusual, but it is clearly within the terms of that Standing Order. In fact, the Standing Order does not lay down that the motion tabled in the House must be the same as that agreed to in the European Standing Committee. It does lay down that the motion in the House, and any amendment selected by the Speaker, has to be put forthwith without debate.
The procedure is, in fact, not unprecedented, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is flawed, or that it has irregularities, he may wish to ask the Procedure Committee to have another look at it in case of any future occurrence. Perhaps he will consider that very seriously, and adopt that course of action.
Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you—my final point comes directly within your remit, not that of the Procedure Committee. Would you be willing to make it clear that, when Ministers act in that way, they should ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are told in advance?
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House knows that I am always in favour of the House knowing precisely what is taking place in the House and in Standing Committees. I ask Ministers to give full notice to the House and those involved of what action is being taken.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a slightly less controversial point of order, Madam Speaker. May I express the relief which is no doubt shared on both sides of the House that you managed to escape from the mud of Morocco? You may well find that the mules that came to your rescue by swimming the river were easier to handle than some of the Members of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I returned in good form, as she is no doubt aware.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have here a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland which has been circulated to a large number of individuals in the Perth and Kinross constituency. It states:
"Until a successor is elected, the hon. Michael Forsyth MP has been asked to represent your interests in Parliament."
Can you confirm that, under the terms of our procedures, no one but an elected Member can represent a constituency in Parliament?
Given that it is now two months since the vacancy occurred, would it not be a better idea if the Government moved the writ for the by-election and let the people of Perth and Kinross choose who is to be their Member of Parliament, rather than attempting to foist the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on an unwilling population?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that no one can represent a constituent in Parliament unless he or she is an elected Member. Whatever arrangements may be made locally in the area or by political parties are not a matter for the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes: You will know, Madam Speaker, that for some time I have been attempting to get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, my private Member's Bill, into Committee. That has now
224
been achieved, and the Bill will be in Committee next week. But that is not the end of the procedural problems I face. You will also remember that last year, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill faced considerable problems on the Floor of the House, which led to criticisms of two hon. Members in particular.
Following the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) did not, as he was entitled to do, select this Friday for the Report stage of his Bill. Instead, he chose the following Friday—the fifth Friday, the final Friday, for the Report stage of private Members' Bills.
If my Bill, which is going into Committee next week, were able to complete its Committee stage in that time, I could have asked for it to be dealt with on Report on that Friday, so that it could then go to another place. That now becomes unlikely, as my Bill will be placed in second position by the actions of the hon. Member for Rochford. That is as serious as the blocking measures that took place last year, and is part of a procedure that has been taking place in a number of Committees, including Standing Committee C, in order to prevent other Bills from making progress.
Are the matters that have taken place in Standing Committee C, especially in connection with the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, in order? If they are, are such practices seen as acceptable, or should we look for another method, so that private Member's who do well in the ballot, and whose measures are well supported in the House and in the country, are given the opportunity for those measures to be debated and voted on in the House?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Let me respond to the point of order.
I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. As far as I am aware, what has taken place in Standing Committee C is perfectly in order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the delay being experienced by his Bill. I can tell him honestly that there is virtually nothing that I as Speaker can do. He and other hon. Members in the House are well aware of the ways and means of getting things done and not getting things done in the House. It is matter for the business managers of the House. If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly try to do so.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the whole House wishes to thank you for what you have just said. I think that you will recall that the House did not distinguish itself last year when we witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of the Government Front Bench and of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
The Government are clearly manipulating the functions of the House for a third year so that they can block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There is no reason why the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) could not have put his Bill, which left Committee this morning, before the House on Friday. That would have allowed the House to consider both his Bill and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Is it not an absolute abuse of the Parliament for the Government and their supporters to behave so shamefully in stymieing civil rights for disabled people?
Madam Speaker: I believe that I have answered the earlier point of order. Whether manipulation has occurred is not a matter for the Speaker to determine. Bills must take their turn when going into or coming out of Committee, and we are all familiar with the procedures of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago, you responded to a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) brought before you, by saying that you would deprecate the way in which Ministers were using the parliamentary system.
In view of the Jopling changes and the complications surrounding the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and other legislation, do you agree that it seems a little odd that the Government have never tackled the question of Private Members' Bills in the House? Do you not think that a little word from you in the right direction might make a difference? If changes are to be made, perhaps under new Labour—new, improved Labour—we ought to turn our attention to doing something about that problem, which affects honest-to-goodness Bills which aim to help disabled persons, wild animals and so on.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member is well aware that I cannot concern myself with the politics of a Private Member's Bill—or even a public Bill, for that matter. I am concerned about the procedures of the House: I want to help the House in general, and I want to help hon.' Members, who work very hard on their Private Members' Bills. In the end, it is a matter for the business managers, and I will do all I can to be helpful.
Mr. Don Touhig: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice following a report which appeared in this morning's edition of the Financial Times. It stated that British Gas will lose its chartermark for high quality services unless it improves customer relations. The report also said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not intend to come to the House to make a statement about the matter, but will report to the House by providing a written answer.
In view of your earlier comments about protecting the interests of hon. Members and of the House, I wonder whether you could provide some advice as to how we might persuade the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to the Chamber to answer questions about the matter.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member may use the Order Paper to direct questions to the appropriate Minister. I am not sure whether he is aware that it is entirely up to the Minister concerned whether he answers a question by way of a written answer or comes to the Dispatch Box to make an oral statement. The Minister must determine by which method he will inform the House of any policy changes or statements he wishes to make; it is not for me to decide.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SPORTS (DISCRIMINATION)
  Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Gary Waller, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Williams, Ms Kate Hoey and Mr. Tom Pendry, presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any administrative or rule-making body for a sport, or any affiliated club, to discriminate against persons who have participated, are participating or are expected to participate in any other lawful sport; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS) AMENDMENT
  Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to provide for the High Court to order the holding of a formal investigation into a shipping casualty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
  That the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 655) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

Transport (Motorway Safety)
4.18 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the safety of motorways and motorway driving; and for connected purposes.
I seek permission to introduce a Bill which would improve safety on our motorways and on all roads throughout the United Kingdom. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend has contributed much to motorway safety in his time at the Department of Transport, including the very sensible measure of banning coaches from the third lane of motorways. That is something on which he knows I am keen. I hope that my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at the proposals I am making today.
The Bill covers two main provisions, one relating to driver visibility in adverse conditions and the other to the behaviour of drivers on our roads. Issues of road safety are particularly relevant to my constituency, not least because we are close to the M25 and the M40. The last census revealed that my constituency is second only to Beaconsfield in the number of three-car families.
Science and technology have made a great contribution to the increased safety of drivers. We all now drive vehicles which give greater protection to drivers and passengers in the event of an accident. The transport and chemicals group of the Technology Foresight process reported last month, and introduced three achievable objectives—the informed traveller, who will be able to make the best decisions on a journey; the foresight vehicle, which would be more environmentally friendly as well as incorporating collision avoidance systems; and the clear zone, to provide high-quality access to central shops through nil-emission public transportation.
In all these future developments, technology will increase safety and reduce environmental impact from motor vehicles. In the meantime, there is a role for Parliament in tackling some of the simpler aspects of motoring safety, where the technology exists but needs stricter enforcement and monitoring, or where we are dealing with the most complex piece of technology—the human being.
In 1993, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 6,863 accidents on motorways. Some 201 people were killed, and 11,046 injured. More than 15,124 vehicles were involved, and 34 per cent. of accidents occurred when the motorway was wet or flooded.
I am sure that everyone in the House has found themselves driving on a motorway in wet conditions and—like me—knows the problems of overtaking heavy vehicles. The spray emanating from the rear of those vehicles can be frightening, and effectively one is are often overtaking blind for 10 or 20 seconds, or longer. If it is at night on an unlit stretch of motorway, it can be more hazardous for the smaller vehicle. I know of many normally excellent drivers who have been unnerved by the experience.
In 1984, the Department of Transport issued regulation 46E on spray suppression and, in 1989, EC directive 89/377 laid out comprehensive rules on spray suppression from HGVs throughout the Community. Many aspects of
228
the regulations are still unsatisfactory, and work is continuing on the technology of both road surfaces and suppression devices to improve the situation.
In the meantime, there are vehicles on the road complying with the regulations at the time of their 12–monthly inspection for roadworthiness which, during a journey, sustain damage to their spray flaps or lose them completely. That immediately causes a vehicle in wet weather conditions to produce extra—often life-threatening—spray.
At present, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, a vehicle can be stopped and tested for brakes, silencer, steering, noise, tyres, lights, excessive fumes, smoke or vapours. I wish to add to that all spray suppression devices, including wheel guards, valances, wheel flaps, air/water separators and any longitudinal strips or flaps of spray suppressant material. Any driver in charge of a vehicle which has sustained damage to its spray suppression equipment should not be permitted to take that vehicle on to the highway until it has been remedied, in just the same way as if a brake light had failed or the tyres were bald.
Last week, while travelling to my constituency—a mere 45–minute drive—I counted no fewer than five heavy vehicles with broken flaps or missing a flap at the back. This simple measure would ensure that HGV drivers paid more attention to a simple device which could save lives by reducing spray in wet weather conditions. Drivers would have to make sure that that important piece of equipment was well maintained at all times.
The second part of the Bill relates to the driver, and to a relatively new phenomenon which appears to be an unwelcome import from America. It has been called road rage, or red mist. The issue first came to our attention in the 1980s, when four people were killed and several injured on Los Angeles freeways in a spate of armed violence. We are now seeing an increase in the number of incidents on our own roads, which must be addressed.
A driver in Newcastle had his nose bitten off in a row with another motorist. At traffic lights in Wakefield, a 78–year-old man died when he was punched by a much younger driver during a dispute at traffic lights. A young woman on the M6 at night was forced off the motorway by a male driver, which left her upside down in her car. The Royal Automobile Club, which was most helpful in helping to prepare my Bill, reports that one of its patrolmen was attacked by a motorist whom he stopped to help. I have been on the receiving end of aggressive driving by other motorists—not least, women. In securing support for my Bill, I spoke to several colleagues, and they repeated alarming stories.
Last November, a driver was given a jail sentence for attacking two other motorists in the space of 15 minutes. Mr. Justice Keane, sentencing the offender, said:
"You become highly aggressive behind the wheel. People should be allowed to drive around without being attacked. The courts will not tolerate aggression of this sort on the road, and the message must go out to other drivers loud and clear."
My Bill asks the Government to reinforce that message by introducing a campaign similar to the successful one against drink-driving, to improve driver awareness of the problem and of the discourteous behaviour that can turn a normally mild-mannered motorist into a fiend of the road.
Where road rage may be an element in an offence, the courts should have an additional power to require the offender to undergo a psychological assessment and counselling for anger and stress management before

229
having his or her driving licence returned. Rage counselling could help overcome attitude problems on the road, in the same way as drink-driving rehabilitation courses have helped offenders.
The RAC identified a number of incidents that cause great annoyance to drivers. They will be familiar to every motorist. Number one are drivers who cut into traffic queues at roadworks at the last minute. Others include the middle-lane monopoliser, motorists who drive too close at high speed, drivers who overtake on the inside, and parking-space stealers.
The RAC has also produced tips for avoiding confrontation on the roads. One should try to stay calm and avoid any challenge, leave room between one's one car and the vehicle in front so that one can drive away if necessary, avoid eye contact with an aggressor, keep the doors locked, and, if one cannot get away, draw attention by flashing one's headlights, sounding the horn or, if one has a mobile phone, calling the police.
Edmund King, head of campaigns at the RAC, and Richard Woods, campaign co-ordinator, have been doing sterling work in spreading the message. It is time for the Government to help spread the message of safety through courtesy on the roads, and to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
I hope that my Bill will heighten awareness of safety matters, not at the leading edge of technology but at a more basic level, by improving the maintenance of, spray-suppression devices and highlighting the need for a courtesy campaign, coupled with appropriate penalties to prevent accidents and violent and dangerous behaviour on our roads.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Oliver Heald, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Hartley Booth.

Transport (Motorway Safety)
  TRANSPORT (MOTORWAY SAFETY)
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan accordingly presented a Bill to improve the safety of motorways and motorway driving; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
Orders of the Day
  Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords]
    New clause 4

      MORTGAGES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
      .—(1) Section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leasing powers of mortgagor and mortgagee in possession) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
      (2) At the beginning of subsection (13), there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (13A) below,&.
      (3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
      "(13A) Subsection (13) of this section—

      (a) shall not enable the application of any provision of this section to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made after 1st March 1948 but before 1st September 1995, and

      (b) shall not enable the power to grant a lease of an agricultural holding to which, by virtue of section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply, to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made on or after 1st September 1995.

      (13B) In subsection (13A) of this section—
      `agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
      `agricultural land' has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.&
      (4) Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which excludes the application of subsection (13) of section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to a mortgage of agricultural land and is superseded by the amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Jack.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.29 pm
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a technical amendment, but the effect is simple. Since 1948, agricultural holdings legislation has effectively prevented mortgage lenders from placing restrictions on the letting of agricultural land by landowners who have mortgaged the land. The effect has been that banks discount land values in the farming sector because the land, even though mortgaged to a bank, can be let in a way that would adversely affect its realisable value in the event of default.
      The banks have supported these far-reaching reforms which have been brought about by the Bill. They have suggested, however—the main organisations in the industry, with which we have worked closely throughout the passage of the Bill, have agreed—that there would be advantages in treating agricultural land like any other land or property which is mortgaged, and enabling mortgage lenders to control lettings if they so wish.
      The industry sees that the banks would be encouraged to adopt a more flexible and confident policy in providing finance to landowners. That in turn would be of benefit to farmers seeking to take on new farm business tenancies. For their part, the banks welcome our action in drafting an amendment to the Law of Property Act 1925. They

      231
      understand our reasons for doing so in a way that avoids any possibility of the provision having any retrospective effect on parties who agreed to mortgages before the commencement of the Bill.
      Subsection 4 contains the principal amendment, whereby paragraph 12 of schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will cease to have effect. That will put mortgaged agricultural land on the same footing as any other mortgaged land. A substantive amendment to the 1925 Act is also needed, to avoid retrospection. As we have made clear throughout our discussions on tenancy law reform, the new legislation is not to be retrospective. The new clause adds a new subsection to section 99 of the 1925 Act to safeguard the interests of existing borrowers and people who are entitled to a new 1986 Act tenancy.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: As the Minister said, the new clause relates to mortgages and the formation of new tenancies. It is a complex subject. There has been tinkering in at least three other Bills, dating back to the Law of Property Act 1925. I am by no means an expert on these matters, but the experts with whom I have been in contact believe the new clause to be a good measure, if a last-minute one.
      The law as it stood left banks unable to recover losses when the original borrower had formed a new tenancy, often transferring to his wife or son. Such tenancies may well have been a way of holding on to the land when insolvency was imminent. The new clause will put agriculture on the same footing as any other mortgaged land. It is to be hoped that it will encourage banks to lend. I welcome the fact that the Government listened to the industry and have not made the changes retrospective. We support the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second Time and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES: ANNUAL REPORT
      `—(1) The Secretary of State shall, annually from 1st September 1996, collate information on the actual amount and type of let agricultural land in England and Wales and publish a report containing this information, a copy of which shall be laid before Parliament.
      (2) The report made under subsection (1) above shall in particular, though without prejudice to the generality of the requirement of that subsection, list separately land let under this Act and tenancies let under earlier Acts.'.—[Mr. Martyn Jones.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The prime reason for the Bill, as stated by the industry, the Government and the Opposition, is to get more people into farming. We wish to give an incentive and impetus to new, younger farmers. We, the Opposition, believe that the Bill will not deliver the goods. It will do nothing to ease the life of the small tenant farmer. The Bill is clearly a licence for large farmers to become larger.
      We need an independent annual report that shows clearly where the Bill is working, where it is failing and where it needs improving. Such a report needs to include records of people who never had a tenancy before, and of people who had a former tenancy. The report should make it clear what type of tenancy was held previously. We
      232
      should also know through the report what new land has been tenanted out, the number and size of lettings to corporate tenants, and the length of term of new farm business tenancies.
      The annual tenanted farm survey of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, although excellent in its own way, provides little of the information we seek. As two other organisations will be able to draw up tenancies, it is clearly the responsibility of Government to monitor what is happening.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the amount of time and money that his extraordinarily bureaucratic proposal would take? Forms are not popular with farmers—indeed, they are not popular with anybody. His proposal would require a massive amount of paperwork, to little effect.
      Mr. Jones: I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady. She will get the reply she requires if she listens to what I have to say.
      The Ministry's figures on land use are at present based on a sample of farms, which is rounded up to form percentages. We need totals, absolute figures and percentages of the whole to ensure that the Bill is doing what it should do.
      The Bill could be seen as a landowners' Bill, and we are not going to be so naive as to swallow all the nonsense figures on new lettings which will be released over the next few years. The new figures will be produced by a range of interested parties, all with their own slant on the figures. As we have seen this month, with the reporting of the Government's figures on unemployment, their methods of statistical collection and analysis can be highly creative, to put it mildly—or to put it less mildly, totally untrustworthy. However, their data will be better than nothing, a good starting point and easily analysed.
      It is not a huge and expensive project that we are asking for. As the Bill stands, only members from three organisations are allowed to draw up the new agricultural tenancies: members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, fellows of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, and fellows of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. With a tiny bit of planning, it would be possible to get the figures needed at a low cost and with the minimum of time. The whole cost will probably come to a lot less than what has been wasted by the Ministry on ties and wellies with logos for the new Meat Hygiene Service.
      The only reason why anyone would want to oppose the new clause would be if they wanted to keep something hidden. What the Government want to keep hidden is the fact that most of the new tenancies under the Bill will go not to first-time tenant farmers but to existing large farmers and to large corporations.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: If the qualifications that the hon. Gentleman is rightly identifying are met and the information is as accurate and as comprehensive as he clearly requires, and if it proves that new tenancies will be coming forward between now, and when, perhaps, he is on the other side of the House, will he give an undertaking here and now that the Labour party will not repeal the proposed legislation?
      Mr. Jones: We shall be giving assurances later, when we have had time to debate the Bill completely. The assurances that the hon. Gentleman wants have been asked for by industry, and we have been considering them. In due course, the hon. Gentleman may well get those assurances. At the moment, we are debating the need for the figures to assess what any future Government will need to do about tenancies, and whether the Bill has the effect of creating new business tenancies.
      It is clear from the announcement this month of the introduction of a new orchard fruit survey that the Minister is not averse to new surveys. There is already an annual report to Parliament on smallholdings in England, and the 44th will be published in November. We are not calling for a radical, costly new imposition, but an easily collectable, and therefore cheap, but very important bit of research.
      The Government want to say that they are supporting new entrants into farming, when all they are doing, we believe, is supporting landowners and big businesses. If the Minister denies that, he should support the new clause, and allow the effect of the Bill to be measured.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On Second Reading, or at some time when the Bill was being considered in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking closely at the way in which the proposed legislation would work. I support the new clause tabled by the Opposition, as I believe that it would not entail a' great deal of work.
      Some time ago, a west country surveyor told me that he had some 25 branches throughout the west country. He was able to tell me within a matter of seconds how many full tenancies he or his firm had been involved with in the previous 18 months, so I do not necessarily see that it will mean a lot of bureaucracy and difficulty. Indeed, I would go further, and say that the facts and figures in agriculture are available here, there and everywhere, but they need to be collated in one short simple form, and it is necessary that we do so.
      I do not profess to have the ultimate answer. I certainly do not have a crystal ball, any more than any other hon. Member. The Government may be right, in due course, to say that the Bill will release a great deal of new agricultural land for letting. I sincerely hope that they are right. I have definite misgivings and have made them known at several stages during the passage of the Bill. I am not necessarily playing the Opposition game. I am looking at the problem.
      We may well encounter a situation in which experienced, well-established farmers again perpetuate a semi-Gladstone v. Bower situation. Further short tenancies will be taken on, and longer ones will not be needed. They will be the icing on the cake. What we need now—what I believe to be the purport of the Bill, and what I sincerely hope will be its effect—is new units for new entrants into agriculture. That is the task for the future.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention. Interventions are supposed to be short and to the point.
      Mr. Llwyd: I shall keep my contribution short. I thought that I was being concise, but there we are. Lawyers are not always concise.
      234
      This is a proper, good new clause, worthy of support. It is a simple, straightforward measure to monitor the working of the Bill. It will enable us to see, in 18 months or two years from now, whether the Government's assurances were correct or whether the misgivings of Opposition Members were correct. I speak in the interests of agriculture, not in a narrow political sense.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He was making a speech, not intervening. My attention was distracted by a conversation at my side. The hon. Gentleman was in order.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I support new clause 1, which asks for an annual report of the type of lettings made under the Bill. That will not entail an enormous amount of work or bureaucracy. The questionnaire involved could be brief, simply asking for the length of a tenancy, its terms, what parcels of land are involved, and so on.
      During the Bill's passage, we have heard several times about the amount of land being let having dropped from 90 per cent. at the turn of the century to just 35 per cent. of our land today. I am not sure that that is a bad thing. In a sense, it reflects the rise of owner-occupation. One would be delighted with those figures if they were for housing. Similarly, I am happy to see them for land.
      However, I am concerned that the number of holdings, the number of farms and the number of people working on the land are in decline year by year. That has terrific social consequences in the areas that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and I represent. It has consequences for the Welsh language and generally for rural areas. There is a real problem in the amalgamation of smallholdings. When farms come on to the market, they are gobbled up by their neighbours, and jobs disappear from the countryside. I am concerned that the Bill allows for that possibility.
      The new clause asks for the amount and type of let agricultural land to be recorded. One of our concerns is the period of let—whether it is a three-year, five-year, 10–year, 15–year or lifetime let. In Committee, we argued for lifetime lets. The statistical exercise requested could tell us the average period of let. The Bill introduces short-termism into agriculture, and agriculture, by its nature, requires long-term investment.
      Such a survey would also show us the extent of fragmentation of holdings, about which we are also concerned. It is more beneficial for a landlord to let a 100–acre holding in two or three parcels and to let the farmhouse, and even the farm buildings, separately. Once destroyed, that holding will never return. In rural areas such as the one I represent, retirement, second and holiday homes are popular, and, by definition, many farmhouses are in extremely attractive situations. If a lot of farms are split up as a result of the Bill, we need to know the environmental and social consequences.
      The Minister keeps telling us that the Bill will make more land available for new entrants into agriculture. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), however, I fear that not new entrants but existing farmers will take up the farm business contracts, and 15 or 20 acres of neighbouring farms.

      235
      The annual survey for which the new clause asks is a perfectly reasonable statistical exercise, reflecting the extent of the Bill's success and the possible deleterious effects about which we are more concerned.
      Mr. Llwyd: Could not the few questions involved be included in the much-maligned IACS—integrated administration and control system—form? That involves tenancies.
      Mr. Williams: Absolutely. During the Easter recess, I spent some time with the Farmers Union of Wales discussing the IACS forms, which farmers find very troublesome. The details required by the new clause amount to only a small fraction of the amount of information demanded by the IACS forms, and could easily be included in them.
      I hope that the Government will consider introducing the modest exercise for which the new clause asks.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Paddy Tipping: As a matter of principle, the Government should take responsibility for their actions. Nearly two years ago, the Minister came in at a very late stage of the passage of the Bill to abolish the milk marketing boards. Some of the claims by Opposition Members then have the ring of truth now.
      I hope that the new clause will be accepted. The Government claim that they want to put new land on the market and to create new entrants; they must now show that they mean it. I have always been sceptical about their claims: I believe that, although new land will come on to the market, most of it will go to established farmers and landowners, and there will be few new entrants. I also fear that there will be very short tenancies, rather than the 10, 15 or 25–year tenancies that would encourage capital investment. That will not be good for the industry. I hope that the survey required by the new clause will also examine rents, which I fear will become very high.
      In Committee, we pressed the Minister about the sale of British Coal land. I acknowledge that the Minister was helpful throughout our discussions, but I remind him that, some weeks after the end of the Committee stage, problems remain.
      I know that allotments are close to the Minister's heart; I hope that the first annual report will state clearly what has happened to British Coal allotment holders. I am not confident that the promises by Ministers in other Departments have the ring of authenticity. Nothing has happened yet, but I hope to read in the first report that allotment holders maintain their plots.
      I also hope that the survey will reveal what has happened to larger pieces of land. Issues involving Crichel Down remain to be resolved—for instance, the question of tenants taking contaminated British Coal land and being indemnified. Large parts of the country are being blighted where the rural aspect coincides with the industrial; the sooner we get rid of that blight the better.m
      I hope that the new clause will be accepted, and that the first annual report shows that the decent thing has been done for British Coal tenancy holders.
      Mr. Jack: This has been an interesting exchange on the question of monitoring the effects of the Bill. My hon.
      236
      Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was right, in her sage intervention, to remind us of the question of cost and complexity when people seek information. I shall say more on that later.
      The opening exchanges have shown us that Labour Members still have an underlying suspicion about the Bill, and do not fully endorse and rejoice in the benefits that it will bring to the world of agriculture. No doubt we shall hear more about that in due course.
      I wrote down what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) said, because I thought it quite interesting—that the Bill was a licence for big farms to get bigger. Clearly he has not read the latest parliamentary briefing sent out by the Tenant Farmers Association, which is an avowed enthusiast of the Bill. The conclusion to that eminently readable document states:
      "Many owners no longer wish to farm. Family farms offer the opportunities to expand and others wish to enter the industry."
      That is a succinct way of pointing out that the Bill has the potential to benefit all sorts of agricultural activity, whether large or small. It may well provide an opportunity for the younger farmer—perhaps the son of an existing farmer—to develop his own business on the existing farm by being able to take advantage of the additional amounts of new tenanted land that the Bill will bring on to the market. That deals with the point made by Labour Members on that matter.
      The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West also said that the Bill was seen as a landowners' Bill. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman was during the Committee stage. I seem to recall that organisations like the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Young Farmers were cited on many occasions as supporters of the Bill. Therefore, I rebut the hon. Gentleman's claim that it is a landowners' Bill; it is not.
      The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) were, each in his own way, supportive of a measure to monitor the Bill's effects. The hon. Member for Carmarthen suggested that the IACS form could be used to collect data. Not everyone has to participate in schemes covered by IACS, so there could be a technical hole in that argument.
      I want to come to the heart of the matter, and comment on the question of monitoring the uptake of farm business tenancies in the coming years. It is in the Government's interests, as it is in the hon. Gentleman's, to see what happens when, I hope, the House passes the Bill into law. As the hon. Gentleman said, in reply to a parliamentary question from him, I said that MAFF regularly reviews its requirements for statistics, and is considering how best to monitor the new farm business tenancies. Indeed, my officials were starting a review of the information currently available when the hon. Gentleman tabled his question.
      As part of the review process, we shall be consulting professional organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which conduct their own invaluable informative surveys, to ensure that there is no duplication of effort leading to unreasonable burdens on farmers and professional advisers. I hope that that point satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.

      237
      We will take careful stock of what needs to be done to put in place sensible arrangements for monitoring, and we will publish the results of that exercise.
      Mr. Tyler: Could I put to the Minister the obverse of the challenge that I put to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones)? Will he give an undertaking to the House that, if the careful monitoring proves to the Minister and the Ministry that the success of the Bill, should it become an Act, has been less than he hoped for, he and his right hon. and hon. colleagues will review the legislation again?
      Having raised the expectation of real improvements in access to new land for new entrants and those whom we all want to ensure have a first step on the ladder of agriculture, it would be damaging if those expectations were thwarted in practice.
      Mr. Jack: It is nice to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) now participating in our proceedings. He gave a new definition to the expression "awayday" during the Committee proceedings.
      As always, I shall do my best to respond positively to his request for review. It is almost a throwaway line, if one is not entirely certain of something, to say that it will be reviewed. I am certain that the Bill will give rise to opportunities for more tenanted land to become available. I am supported in that line of argument by the work of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which, before measures were introduced to deal with the treatment of tenanted land for inheritance tax, forecast that more than I million new acres would become available in the first five years.
      I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West sufficient assurances that we will establish proper monitoring of the effects of the Bill. Naturally, we want to see what will happen. The hon. Member for North Cornwall may perhaps be unaware of some of the inner workings of government, but we always keep under review the way in which a particular piece of legislation is operating. I will not give him the satisfaction this evening of giving a time scale within which some sort of review will be undertaken. We want to get the legislation in place and monitor carefully what is happening. Clearly, as always, if there were problems, matters could be looked at again.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but does he agree that the success of the Bill will be seen not in the maintenance of statistics, whether or not they show a huge increase in the amount of land to be let, but in the freedom of contract that it will provide between landlord and tenant?
      Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who has much knowledge in the matter, makes his own sage comment.
      Mr. Tyler: I want to be absolutely clear, and I am sure that the House will also want to be clear, that the Minister endorses the forecast by the RICS that 1 million acres will become available within the time scale referred to.
      Mr. Jack: My task is to draw on the independent analyses that have been done. They give us a clear picture of how those who are informed about these matters estimate that the Bill will impact on the tenanted sector. I certainly do not wish to disagree with that.
      238
      We shall have to wait and see what the uptake is. The RICS has said that 1 million acres of land could be made available. It is my earnest hope that all those organisations which have been such strong supporters of the measure will find that their members—for example, young farmers, tenant farmers and others—will take up the opportunities provided. The monitoring exercise that I have described builds on the expertise of those organisations. We seek not to duplicate but to work with the industry on the matter. We want to make certain that all the relevant strands of monitoring are drawn together.
      We agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West about the desirability of monitoring the effects of the Bill. In the light of what I have said and the consultations that we wish to have with the RICS and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers so that all that expertise can be drawn together, I hope that the hon. Gentleman might see fit to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Llwyd: It is accepted that the Bill has been some five or six years in gestation. I am astonished that the Ministry has not put something together in the way of monitoring at this stage. We have had so many years of discussion about it. Why does not the Minister have a form of monitoring ready and waiting which could be written into the Bill? That would have been preferable to leaving it on a hope basis for later.
      5 pm
      Mr. Jack: As I have told the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West, because we have already started an exercise to review the way in which we will monitor the legislation. It would almost be discourteous to the House automatically to anticipate that we would simply get this measure through and then start, well in advance, to prepare a monitoring exercise. We want to make certain that we know exactly what we are monitoring. Until the Bill passes all its stages in this House, that is something that we cannot do. In timetabling terms, we have found a sensible balance on the matter.
      Mr. Derek Enright: The Minister asked whether we were suspicious of the Government, and I confess that I am now extremely suspicious, because he has not responded to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) for information on allotment holders, which is extremely important to some of us.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comment. I have a personal interest, having dug an allotment over Easter. Allotment land is not subject to the agricultural holdings legislation, but British Coal and the Department of Trade and Industry are reviewing how it will be treated, in the way the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) described. Those concerned are well aware of the anxieties expressed that the land should be retained for its existing use. The hon Gentleman asked me a number of other questions, and I will ensure that he gets a definitive answer in some way, shape or form.
      With those remarks, and our commitment to put in place a proper monitoring system, I hope that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West will see fit to withdraw the new clause.
      Dr. Gavin Strang: In his opening remarks, the Minister of State said that the Opposition

      239
      were not rejoicing in their support for the Bill. I can certainly confirm that. Indeed, we have been consistent in our opposition to it.
      We oppose the Bill because we believe in security of tenure for tenant farmers, and we regard the relationship between a landlord and a tenant as fundamentally unequal. That means that legislation is required, and the Government have implicitly accepted that need in the Bill.
      I think that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) encapsulated the argument when he mentioned freedom of contract between the landlord and the tenant. We believe that the tenant needs something more, which is why we regard this legal framework for governing relationships between farmers and landowners as flawed and unacceptable on the fundamental points of social justice and security of tenure.
      The argument for the Bill has been stated, and there is no doubt about the motives of some of the participants—there is a genuine wish to encourage new entrants into the industry. Labour Members certainly share that wish, which is why we published the consultative document that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) produced. The document proposed some hard, practical and concrete proposals for encouraging new entrants into the industry, and I will return to the industry's reaction to it, but not during this debate.
      Mr. Jack: The document published last September contained an intriguing little phrase. The author said:
      "If the legislation … is not working sufficiently well"—
      I presume he meant this legislation—
      "the Labour Party would consider re-introducing a minimum term of farm tenancies".
      Can the hon. Gentleman assist me by giving me a precise definition of what "not working well" means?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering the new clause, and it would be helpful if the hon. Member would get back to that.
      Dr. Strang: Since new clause 1 concerns working well and monitoring the legislation when it comes into force, I want to deal with those points explicitly. Working well includes, among other things, the question of new entrants. That is the whole purpose of the Bill—well, it is not the whole purpose, as I would not grant the Government that, but it is one of its purposes.
      We want to monitor the effect of the legislation, and you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the clause concerns monitoring. I hope to catch your eye on Third Reading, when I will be more explicit, but we want to give the legislation an opportunity to work, and do not intend, therefore, to introduce retrospective legislation.
      Monitoring and whether it is a reasonable proposition in the context of this new legislation are the real issues. I interpret the Minister of State's remarks as positive on that account, and think that he is acknowledging that there is a good case for reviewing the effect of the legislation over a period of years. This is a long-term business. Frankly, it is because we regard farming as a long-term business that we are against the Bill. It will take some years to find out how the legislation is working out.
      240
      Various attempts have been made to anticipate the effects of the legislation. Many hon. Members, including, I think, the Minister of State, referred to the document produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, "Farm Business Tenancies, New Farms and Land 1995–97", which was a valuable report. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote from some of the key conclusions.
      It is projected that
      "nearly 900,000 acres will be let through chartered surveyors for five years or more under a farm business tenancy. This would comprise 1,166 equipped farms and 3,315 blocks of bare land…From a core of 9.4 million acres existing lifetime and qualifying succession tenancies will continue under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for many years. Some owners' agents indicated that they will recommend reletting on the basis of long-term traditional type tenancies when this land falls vacant. Of the 8.56 million acres of land in England and Wales where chartered surveyors may not be retained continuously and which is likely to be predominantly owner-occupied it is probable that some will come into the let sector for the first time under farm business tenancies."
      The survey could not identify the extent to which that might happen, and many respondents did not reply to the questionnaire. That shows that there is a case for looking at the effect of the legislation.
      It was suggested, I think by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), that that might be done through the IACS form. No one is ruling that out, but the Minister of State correctly pointed out that implicit in that suggestion is an acceptance that one is going to survey every farm in the country, which is not necessary under our new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) also commented on that.
      We are interested in genuinely objective information about how the legislation is working. I will give some of the key factors that we should be considering in a minute. It may well be possible to do so through good samples. Obviously, they will have to be spread throughout England and Wales. The position in Scotland is different, and the legislation does not apply there, as tradition and attitude to the issue are in some respects rather different from those of the body politic in agriculture in England. The position in Wales is also slightly different.
      Surely we are interested in the extent to which more land is owned by institutions. The institutional ownership of land was a major issue, as many hon. Members will remember, and was one reason why the last Labour Government set up what was probably the best and most authoritative report on the issue—the Northfield report, which was published after Labour lost power. The then Minister of Agriculture, who later became a Secretary of State for the Environment, handled the matter, and the incoming Conservative Government did nothing.
      In those days, the ownership of land by non-British or non-European Union citizens was also an issue, and to an extent it still concerns people in some parts of Scotland when they see whole islands being bought and sold every year. Although there is less overall concern about those issues now, I should have thought that we would want to keep information on what is happening in that respect.
      How many new farm business tenancies, which commence on 1 September 1995, will be created each year, and how many will be created on previously unoccupied land? Will the farmhouse stay with the farm? I think that the Conservative party supports our position, which is that we want to encourage family farms and family farming.

      241
      We criticise the Bill because we believe that, among other things, it will lead to the fragmentation and break-up of holdings. We may be wrong—who is to say? But we should monitor the extent to which land will simply be let to neighbouring farmers.
      Will bona fide new entrants into the industry have proper tenancies, albeit short-term tenancies? I recognise that those may be enough to get them started, build up a fairly intensive business and then move on to something else. It goes without saying that we are interested in the duration of those tenancies. We are not going down the right road if we are to end up with the bulk of our tenanted land farmed on the basis of five-year tenancies.
      We welcome the Government's constructive response on this matter and will therefore not push the new clause.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 2

      MILK QUOTAS: COMPENSATION
      `Where a milk quota was registered in relation to land held on a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, and that land is let immediately upon the expiry of that tenancy as a farm business tenancy, and where no claim was made for compensation in respect of that quota under the Agriculture Act 1986, that latter Act shall still apply to that milk quota which shall not be the subject of any' other claim for compensation.'.—[Mr. Martyn Jones.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is a redraft of new clauses originally discussed in the other place. It is a minor new clause that protects farmers in tenancies covered by the 1986 Act when the new farm business tenancy comes into effect. Clause 16(3) does away with the 1986 Act's formula for assessing milk quota compensation. Any compensation under a farm business tenancy will be under the general wording of clause 17 on landlords' consent.
      Where a tenancy under the 1986 Act has been surrendered or terminated and the outgoing tenant enters into a farm business tenancy in respect of an area including the same land, either as an individual or in a partnership, he may not press for his milk quota compensation at the date of the changeover. He will thus forgo his entitlement to milk quota compensation under the 1986 Act, and his previous period of occupation will not be carried forward into the assessment of improvements made at the end of his farm business tenancy. If a tenant does not insist on payment of compensation for quota at the end of a 1986 lease, he will lose all rights to payment at a later date. The new clause ensures that that will not happen.
      The Government should not allow the Bill to be used as a cloak for false undertakings so that landlords can avoid responsibility to pay compensation under the 1986 Act. The new clause is narrow and will not result in a major prolongation of the life of the 1986 Act.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Tyler: I wish to endorse the purpose of the new clause. I hope that the Minister has taken seriously the
      242
      points that have been made, not just by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) but by many individuals in the industry.
      Clearly, the question of milk quotas currently features in the calculations that anybody in the dairy sector must make because of the extraordinary value that can now be attached to them. I know that the Minister and his right hon. Friends share my concern at how milk quotas seem increasingly to be getting out of hand. In those circumstances, I hope a way will be found to ensure that no opportunity is lost to compensate those who might otherwise be put at considerable financial disadvantage. I am not in a position to say whether the new clause is the only or best way to do that. There may be another more technically secure way, but I hope that the Minister can reassure the House and the industry that a belt-and-braces system will be put in place to ensure that compensation will not be lost in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) was right to alert the House in his opening remarks to the fact that this matter was dealt with extensively in another place. I thought that the matter had been settled then, but I understand the concerns which the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have expressed. I shall deal with those matters at length because they are important and must be put on the record.
      Milk quota is an important, complicated and technical matter but I see no good reason to add to existing complications by accepting the new clause. We have been over all these issues before in considerable detail and have genuinely satisfied the industry's concerns on this matter to such an extent that it does not support the new clause.
      Tenants who take up a farm business tenancy immediately after a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act has ended and who are eligible to do so can agree to use the current milk quota compensation provision in the Agriculture Act 1986 to determine compensation payable in respect of the original tenancy. They will also be free to agree on the timing of such compensation. For example, it might suit parties to make the actual payment at the end of the farm business tenancy. Such an agreement might make sense where both parties want to secure the benefits of a farm business tenancy but where the landlord cannot immediately raise the money to settle compensation under the Agriculture Act before the new tenancy starts.
      It is vital to remember that not everyone with a dairy farm tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 would be eligible for compensation under the Agriculture Act 1986 in respect of milk quota. The statutory compensation scheme ensures that the respective shares of landlord and tenant in the value of quota allocated to a producer in occupation of a holding on 2 April 1984 are taken into account when the tenancy ends or when the last of any statutory succession tenancies have ended. But if the original tenant took up occupancy after 2 April 1984, there is no right to compensation.
      With respect, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West may not have appreciated the difficulties of providing legal certainty if two systems of statutory compensation for milk quota were in operation in relation to the same holding. The first problem would be to ensure that any Agriculture Act rights are respected where a farm

      243
      business tenancy has begun and the tenant has an entirely different statutory entitlement to compensation for additional quota brought on to his holding under clause 16. It would be even more difficult in cases where tenancies occupy some other land for milk production as well as their farm business holdings. Because of the operation of European Community rules, such additional quota would have to be aggregated with all the existing quota registered in the producer's name and might, over the life of the tenancy, become impossible to identify.
      I reassure Opposition Members that clause 16(3) does not prevent parties from agreeing the most appropriate arrangements on milk quota compensation in respect of a 1986 Act tenancy that comes to an end in such a way as to meet their particular needs. It may also be an important factor in detailed negotiations for a subsequent business tenancy that might be on offer to existing tenants. I assure the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West that we have gone into the issue in substantial detail, that no danger exists of tenants being deprived of their compensation rights by the Bill, and that the industry is satisfied that that is so. With those assurances and that explanation—I apologise for the complexity, but it is a detailed matter—I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that he should, on reflection, withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances, following which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      NOTICE REQUIRING STATUTORY RENT REVIEW.
      Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 18, after 'rent', insert—
      `( ) any date as from which there took effect a previous determination as to the amount of the rent made, otherwise than as arbitrator, by a person appointed under an agreement between the landlord and the tenant.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Jack: This is a technical amendment. Under the Bill, parties may agree to the appointment of a person to determine rent "otherwise than as arbitrator". The amendment is necessary so that the rent review cycle takes account of any such rent determination in the same way as if an arbitrator had determined the rent at a rent review. The amendment to clause 11 is consequential on that amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Cause 11
      REVIEW DATE WHERE NEW TENANCY OF SEVERED PART OF REVERSION
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 7, line 42, after `direction', insert ', determination'.—[Mr. Jack.]
    Clause 19

      REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION OF REFUSAL OR FAILURE TO GIVE CONSENT OR OF CONDITION ATTACHED TO CONSENT.
      Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 22, leave out
      `the proposed provision of a'
      and insert 'any'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 11.
      Mr. Jack: This is one of the most important of the amendments that we are considering this afternoon. May I put on record my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West for withdrawing his amendment? I know that the matter caused hon. Members on both sides of the Committee some considerable concern. The Government thought carefully about that: hence the amendment. It deals with what is known as tenant-right matters. Those concerns arose because the system of compensation under the Bill is different from that under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
      Under that Act, improvements are divided into long-term improvements, for which the consent of the landlord is required, and short-term improvements, for which the tenant can claim compensation without having obtained the landlord's consent. Schedule 8 to that Act lists the short-term improvements and tenant-right matters.
      Under the Bill, no such distinction is made. All improvements require landlords' consent to be eligible for compensation. In cases where consent is refused, the tenant has the right to go to arbitration, except in the case of planning permission. However, fears were expressed that some tenants, being used to the 1986 Act, might not realise that they needed a landlord's consent for certain routine operations, for which they later intended to claim compensation. The amendment deals with that point.
      The principal concern related to growing crops left on the holding at the end of a tenancy, but there was also a strong feeling that a tenant's right to compensation should be safeguarded where he had performed other common activities that add to the value of the holding, such as liming or applying fertiliser. The amendment that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West tabled in Committee attempted to deal with those points by including a list of specified matters for which tenants would be entitled to compensation without the need to obtain the landlord's consent.
      I explained in Committee why the Government were not attracted by that listing approach. I agreed, however, that I would reflect on what could be done about the position, and said that we would discuss it further with the industry. We have come up with a different approach, which can cover all those matters that I have mentioned—such as growing crops and applying fertiliser—as well as others that add value to the holding. I am pleased to say that that approach has the support of the industry group. Although it requires a number of amendments, the overall effect is straightforward.
      The amendments to clause 19 will ensure that a tenant can carry out "routine improvements" without losing the right to seek arbitration if the landlord, for any reason, withholds consent, or attaches conditions that the tenant does not wish to accept.

      245
      Routine improvement is broadly defined as a physical improvement made in the normal course of farming the holding. It does not cover improvements to fixed equipment, or improvements prohibited by the tenancy agreement. It is intended to cover individual acts of husbandry of the type that we considered in Committee, including those that add only a small amount of value compared with the overall value of the holding. Compensation for routine improvements will be calculated on the same basis as end-of-tenancy compensation for other improvements—the increase, attributable to the improvement, in the value of the holding as land comprised in a tenancy.
      Some concern has been expressed that that could result in routine improvements, which may have a small value relative to the overall value of the holding, being overlooked. However, the same principles of valuation will apply for small and routine improvements as for large ones. If they add value, they should be compensated accordingly.
      Amendment No. 11 in relation to clause 22 will help the parties to keep the cost of arbitration to the minimum. If they are unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator, they may apply to the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who will appoint one for them. The amendment says that, where two applications are being made at the same time for the appointment of an arbitrator, first to consider consent due to routine improvements, and, secondly, to consider the amount of compensation due, the RICS president must appoint the same arbitrator for both matters. If both applications are made by the same person, just one application fee is payable.
      I hope, with those few words, that I have illustrated that we have fully responded to the concerns expressed on both sides of the Committee. We have consulted the industry. It supports the amendment, which deals comprehensively with matters concerning the tenant right.
      Mr. Tyler: I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to a number of hon. Members, including myself. Indeed, I spoke on the tenant right issue on Second Reading. That was an important subject, which we returned to on a number of occasions in Committee. He has come up with an admirable solution to the problem.
      Few of us were happy with the idea of a schedule of all the different tenant right compensation opportunities that might occur because those might change. The last thing that we want is to put on statute something that might become anachronistic in a comparatively short time or, by so doing, to exclude some other normal husbandry practice that might develop in the years to come.
      The concept of routine improvement and the definition in amendment No. 10 seems admirable. If the industry and valuers think that they can work with it, the House will probably find that it will be a practical application of the principles with which we were all concerned.
      I note the Minister's remarks about the need to restrain arbitration costs. That is important. We may find that, if the legislation is undermined, it will be only because the problems of compensation and arbitration become intractable. Therefore, people would seek to avoid those problems by various means and we may have to come back to the matter.
      246
      The legislation's main principles will prove to be well founded, but I am concerned about the problems of cost. Clearly, where a comparatively small sum is involved in the compensation that may be payable, to go to expensive arbitration would be absurd. I hope that amendment No. 11 will meet that point.
      I hope that the House will support the proposals. I believe them to be extremely important for the success of the whole Bill. I give them my support.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I rise briefly to give a warm welcome to the amendments, especially amendment No. 10.
      The Tenants Reform Industry Group has throughout wanted the Bill to specify the way in which "routine improvements", as they are called in the amendment, should be dealt with. Although I largely favour the Bill because it is a deregulatory measure and it allows a large amount of latitude for agreement between the lessor and the lessee, in that specific respect it is right that the way in which one deals with routine improvements—the so-called tenant's right—should be specified on the face of the Bill.
      If for no other reason, it should be specified because any legislation passed through this place should deal with the rogue landlord and the rogue tenant, and it would be possible, with the Bill in its present state, for a landlord to be especially awkward with a tenant in the last year of the tenancy and make life very difficult for that tenant as regards the way in which he should be compensated at the end of the tenancy.
      It appears wholly wrong, when the agreement is supposed to exist to ensure that the holding is farmed as well as possible, if something that we do in the Bill impairs that. We want the farming to be conducted in the best possible manner right up to the end of the tenancy. I therefore welcome the amendment whole-heartedly.
      That subject was originally mentioned by the noble Lord Gallacher in Committee in the other place. It was also mentioned in Committee in this House. I supported the amendments moved by the Opposition. There has been cross-party support.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and I urge the House to support the amendment.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State who, by giving the right to tenant right, have now got the Bill as near to perfection as possible, such even that the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) would find it difficult to vote against any aspect of it.
      We now have in the Bill, as I understand it, and especially by means of amendment No. 10, the right to tenant right. I suppose that we must now await the code by which the professionals in the industry will assess the way in which tenant right valuations are carried out. I very much hope that the code will be available before Royal Assent is given to the Bill. Then my cup of joy will be overflowing.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: We obviously welcome amendments Nos. 3 to 11, because, in effect, they are equivalent to our new clause 3, which was not moved. We know that they are welcome to the industry. Opposition Members have been asking for tenant right since the first stages of the Bill in the Lords and we have done so again on Report in this House, with our new clause 3.
      In the other place, Lord Howe, speaking about tenant rights, said that he thought that that was an issue that should be covered by the RICS guidelines, not the Bill; so Lord Howe was asking farmers to sign up to guidelines that had not even been written.
      We understand that industry has been pushing the Government hard for those changes, while we have always been committed to tenant right. We are glad that, for once, the hard line dogma of deregulation at all costs, which appeared to be the major motivation of the Bill, has been ignored in favour of industry-driven good management.
      We are sorry that it has taken the Government so much longer than us to come round to that way of thinking. We also hope that their loose wording of "routine improvements" will not lead to hardship to tenant farmers as landowners fight over the issues of the wording.
      In addition, we can foresee that vague wording being used by less honest landlords as a way to bring pressure to bear on tenants seeking another tenancy from them, the landlord forcing the tenant, quite legally, to reduce his' demands for compensation. We believe that the use of the phrase "tenant right" as used in our new clause would have been a defence against that. We hope, however, that the amendment will provide the protection demanded and required by the industry.
      We should also like an assurance from the Minister that "routine improvements" includes crops in fields at the termination of the tenancy and emergency repairs without permission of the landlord.
      In cases not covered by tenant right, we have worries about the delays in compensation. I know that that is not directly covered by the amendments, but there could be a two-month delay following written application to the landlord. Time could be lost while the arbitrator was appointed and a hearing date awaited before the tenant could do any major project not covered by the words "routine improvements".
      I shall be grateful for any comments that the Minister wishes to make on those matters of concern.
      Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for their warm support for the amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and for Stroud spoke with knowledge in Committee and they reflected a genuine anxiety about those matters, as did other hon. Members.
      Although the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West and others pressed for what has become the amendment before the House this afternoon, we had given careful thought to some of the issues that tenant right tackled. I would say, almost as a precautionary note to anyone reading our proceedings, that all the issues that can be covered by the amendment could also have been covered by prior
      248
      agreement between landlord and tenant. As a result of that discussion, the anxiety was expressed that people who might be used to older practices, or who did not necessarily take those matters into account as a result of difficulties in the landlord-tenant relationship or shoddy drafting of an agreement, might not cover those matters in their preliminary exchanges. That is very much the fail-safe long-stop mechanism that exists for that type of routine improvements.
      The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West perhaps went a little further than the definitions that I had placed on record. I would say to him that the routine improvements are a question of the differentials in valuations. He also asked me about repairs. Repairs would normally be covered by a separate part of the agreement between landlord and tenant, and I would expect that, as part of their discussions, issues of emergency matters would be discussed as a preliminary to their discussions about the way in which they wish to run the holdings, because the issue of dilapidations is also covered separately.
      Those questions were largely about agricultural issues and I believe that they were motivated very much by an anxiety about what happened to the crop that might be left in the ground at the end of the tenancy. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West about that matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud rightly mentioned the RICS guidelines. I apologise to him for the fact that I had not been able to convey to him a message that the RICS would be delighted if he were to call upon it and discuss the progress that it is making with those guidelines. I gather that work is well advanced, and that it hopes that the documentation will be available, certainly in the early summer.
      The RICS is wise to be cautious and careful in what it is doing, because that document will be a pivotal one, ensuring that good advice is available to people drawing up farm business tenancies. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also that there would be further sources of advice, but if he cares to take up that offer I shall be happy to act as an intermediary.
      Following the warm words of hon. Members, I thank them for their co-operation on that matter.
      Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he says. However, the crucial matter—because my hon. Friend is so right that that is a pivotal part, not of the Bill but of the practice—is whether all that information is provided before the Bill is enacted. The critical point is not whether it is early or late summer but whether it is before the date of enactment.
      Mr. Jack: I take slight issue with my hon. Friend. I could not commit the RICS to a specific date. It is obviously not in my gift; it is its document, not mine. I hope that I am right in interpreting what my hon. Friend says as meaning that he wants that advice to be available in good time for people who embark on drawing up the first of what we hope will he many successful farm business tenancies. I am sure that the RICS will read those proceedings and take note of my hon. Friend's sage words.
      I hope that the House will support the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 10, line 23, leave out from 'improvement' to 'is' in line 24 and insert
      `the tenant under a farm business tenancy'.
      No. 5, in page 10, line 32, at end insert
      but this subsection has effect subject to subsections (IA) and (2) below.
      (1A) No notice under subsection (1) above may be given in relation to any tenant's improvement which the tenant has already provided or begun to provide, unless that improvement is a routine improvement.'.
      No. 6, in page 10, line 45, after `RICS', insert
      `subject to subsection (7A) below'.
      No. 7, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'proposed'.
      No. 8, in page 11, line 5, at beginning insert
      `Subject to subsection (7A) below'.
      No. 9, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'proposed'.
      No. 10, in page 11, line 14, at end insert—
      '(7A) Where, at any time after giving a notice under subsection (I) above in relation to any tenant's improvement which is not a routine improvement, the tenant begins to provide the improvement—

      (a) no application may be made under subsection (3) above after that time,

      (b) where such an application has been made but no arbitrator has been appointed before that time, the application shall be ineffective, and

      (c) no award may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above after that time except as to the costs of the reference and award in a case where the arbitrator was appointed before, that time.

      (7B) For the purposes of this section—
      "fixed equipment & includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works constructed on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or its produce, or amenity;
      "routine improvement &, in relation to a farm business tenancy, means any tenant's improvement which—

      (a) is a physical improvement made in the normal course of farming the holding or any part of the holding, and

      (b) does not consist of fixed equipment or an improvement to fixed equipment,

      but does not include any improvement whose provision is prohibited by the terms of the tenancy.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

    Clause 22

      SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
      '( ) Where—

      (a) an application under subsection (3) above relates wholly or partly to compensation in respect of a routine improvement (within the meaning of section 19 of this Act) which the tenant has provided or has begun to provide, and

      (b) that application is made at the same time as an application under section 19(3) of this Act relating to the provision of that improvement,

      the President of the RICS shall appoint the same arbitrator on both applications and, if both applications are made by the same person, only one fee shall be payable by virtue of section 30(1) of this Act in respect of them.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

    Clause 40

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 20, line 35, at end insert
      250
      `, except that paragraph 9 of the Schedule does not extend to Northern Ireland.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 13.
      Mr. Jack: The amendments are minor and technical.
      The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 does not apply to Northern Ireland, but it may, in whole or in part, be extended to apply there by Order in Council. Section 27 was so extended to Northern Ireland in 1979, with necessary variations. Those provisions should be allowed to continue in force there.
      The amendments to section 27 of the 1951 Act contained in paragraph 9 of the schedule to the Bill are not relevant to Northern Ireland as farm business tenancies will not exist there. As clause 40 is drafted they would, however, be applied. The amendment to clause 40 is necessary to rectify that and to ensure that the provisions of the 1979 Order in Council are not affected.
      The amendment to paragraph 9 of the schedule is necessary because the reference in section 27 of the 1951 Act to the War Damaged Sites Act 1949 was repealed in 1989.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 22, leave out lines 30 and 31.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Bill reported, with amendments.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified].
      5.42 pm
      The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      At the last election, the Conservative party gave a clear manifesto commitment to introduce proposals to liberalise agricultural tenancy laws. If passed by the House today, the Bill will deliver that commitment.
      We can truly say that the Bill has not been particularly divisive in party terms. We have had the broad support of the Liberal Democrats; we shall perhaps return to the attitude of the Labour party later. At least we have heard support from the Labour party today for amendments and improvements that have been proposed, some of which were suggested by the Opposition Front-Bench team and Opposition Members.
      Above all, the Bill responds to an unparalleled breadth of consensus within the industry. No one who has held my office, even for as short a time as I have, would expect to find unanimity in agriculture. If two or three farmers gather together, there are likely to be at least three or four opinions after a little bit of debate.
      The work done over a number of years to bring together a coalition of the principal interests has been remarkable. I do not think that even five years ago people would have predicted such agreement on such a far-reaching and forward-looking package of reform. It took much discussion and much hard work and patience for that consensus to be reached. For that, I pay tribute to my two

      251
      predecessors in my ministerial office, who clearly set out their views on the direction of reform and who acted as midwives at the birth of the child who has come of age today.
      I should particularly like to thank the various associations—perhaps, above all, the Tenant Farmers Association, as it would have been easiest for it to take a negative attitude. It did not, and it and its policy adviser, Jeremy Moody, played a key role in maintaining progress throughout. That organisation was ably supported by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the young farmers associations, and the dialogue has been good.
      Mr. Llwyd: Will the Secretary of State comment on the attitude to the Bill of the larger of the two farming unions in Wales? Has he received representations from it?
      Mr. Waldegrave: As is well known, the two organisations have taken a different view. I had a productive and positive meeting with them during one of my visits to the Principality. They remain sceptical. I am not claiming that there is total unanimity; some members of the National Farmers Union in different parts of the country remain doubtful. I do not want to over-exaggerate, but it is fair to say that there is wide consensus in a pluralistic industry. In my experience, most' of the participants are characters with strongly held, independent views. Therefore, I think that the level and extent of agreement is remarkable.
      I should add one additional word of thanks. The House is always sympathetic to constituency points. Without getting into trouble over advertising, I should like to thank the principal legal experts on the subject, Burges Salmon and Andrew Densham, and others of my constituents who have helped my Department and Members of Parliament with advice during the passage of the Bill. As I am talking on a personal basis, may I say that I should have begun my speech by repeating a declaration of interest? As the House knows, I have a shareholding in a family tenant farm. It is unaffected by the Bill, as we have not made the mistake of introducing retrospective legislation.
      The Bill's aims, as we said on Second Reading, are to tackle the decline in tenancies offered, to open up opportunities to new entrants and to provide flexibility for agriculture to remain internationally competitive. The background must be not that the present position is a satisfactory one that we need to maintain but that it is unsatisfactory. Whatever the theoretical intentions behind previous Acts passed by the House may have been, we know what the position is.
      We know that the great majority of tenancies that are being let are for fewer than two years under various loophole arrangements that have been devised—largely by Burges Salmon and other of my constituents. We are not removing rights that apply to secure tenancies that are being let. They are not being let—instead, short, loophole tenancies are being let. The number of new tenancies under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is minuscule—it has almost dried up. That has brought the present legislation into disrepute and has brought the Tenant Farmers Association and others to their present conclusions.
      252
      Many of my hon. Friends are knowledgeable on the subject and, as has been said, the Bill's main feature is to respect the freely entered into contract between landlord and tenant. There may have been periods in our social history when there has been a great imbalance one way or the other between the two partners. I would not deny that that happened in the 19th century, but if we look at the modern British farming industry we see that those days are long past. We can expect a reasonable degree of negotiation and a reasonable balancing of interests to emerge from freely entered into tenancies.
      I think that we shall see a variety of such tenancies after September this year—some for long periods, some for medium-length periods and some for short tenancies. The length of each tenancy will reflect what is economically sensible and what suits the best interests of both parties. It will be affected by the nature of the holding and so on. The key point for new entrants is that, if they can overcome the all-important initial hurdle of gaining access to land, at least they have a chance to show their mettle and build up a track record and a long-term business.
      All landlords want good tenants, and most want to keep them once they have found them. Longer tenancies will flow from mutual trust, not legal compulsion. We have tried that policy and it has not worked. That fact was well expressed in a press release issued by the Tenant Farmers Association, which states:
      "It must be better to bring more land on to the market than to face the present steep decline in the long term let sector, one which would continue if the law imposed a long term tenancy."
      That view now prevails in all the main industry organisations. Sir David Naish, the president of the NFU, is on record as saying:
      "tenancy reform will breathe new life into the farming industry".
      We have made a number of amendments to the Bill, both here and in another place, which we think have improved it. Some of those amendments have been introduced with the agreement of the Labour party; all of them, without exception, have been fully supported by the industry. Others have been argued for by my hon. Friends, as we heard today.
      We have also included a new clause—a key complementary step—in the Finance Bill that will extend inheritance tax relief to new lettings. All in all, we are doing everything within our power to revitalise the tenanted sector.
      Some commentators have expressed doubts about the extent to which we will succeed and about the lack of security for tenants. However, I have not heard anyone suggest a practical way in which the Bill could do more to persuade those who own agricultural land to provide new tenancy opportunities.
      I was a little saddened by the fact that the Labour party voted against Second Reading. It seemed unwise for the Opposition to fly in the face of such wide support in the farming community and I had hoped that they would take a more constructive approach.
      It is perhaps ironic that the House seems to take a more old-fashioned attitude to such matters than one would expect. The noble Lord Carter, in explaining the Labour party's position in another place, adopted a more temperate approach to the matter. I would hardly expect Labour Members to agree now that we have been right all

      253
      along and they have been wrong. One lives in hope, but I think that it would be surprising if they were to change their minds tonight.
      I make one point to the Opposition. We have taken great care to avoid retrospection in the Bill. We could have decided quite reasonably—in fact, many people urged us to do so—to go back and clear up what many consider to be the mess that Labour created with its 1976 legislation. We could have decided to abolish the succession rights that applied to pre-1984 tenancies, to give security to generations of successors and so on. There was quite a lot of pressure on us to do that.
      We resisted the temptation on the ground that in this area, above all others, retrospective legislation is bad. We did not intend to follow Labour's precedent of passing retrospective legislation. Where the Bill might have had retrospective effect unintentionally or indirectly—such as in relation to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who followed the long-established Evesham custom with which the House is now expert—we took steps to amend it in order to avoid that consequence.
      Surely it is right to ask the Opposition to make the same commitment today. I think that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), made the same point. I advise people that the risk of a Labour Government in the foreseeable future is very small. Nonetheless, others are less well informed than me, about the matter. Some landowners—for reasons best known to themselves—may harbour such fears. If they are to be encouraged to let land now—I think that that is the unanimous view of the House—it is vital that they should not be put off by the spectre of retrospective legislation introduced by a future Labour Government. In order to remove any disincentive to letting that may stem from such fears—unjustified though they may be—I call upon the Opposition to make a firm and clear pledge today not to introduce any future legislation on the subject which would have a retrospective effect.
      Opposition Members have referred to monitoring today and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has responded positively to their points. We should allow the Bill to work effectively and not damage its chances of working by passing remarks about it or by making promises or pledges into the future. That is the least that the Labour party should be prepared to do in order to give the Bill a proper chance to work effectively in the interests of tenants.
      I believe that we have improved the Bill a great deal during consideration in this and in another place. It is now a very good Bill which goes as far as it is reasonable to go. We should now look with confidence to a significant boost in the tenanted sector from 1 September this year onwards. Perhaps then the distant echoes of 1976 will finally die away. I commend the Bill to the House.
      5.53 pm
      Dr. Gavin Strang: I am not sure about the distant echoes of 1976, given that I am closely associated with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1976. I shall refer to that later in my speech.
      The Labour party has opposed the legislation and we stand four square in our continued opposition to it. My hon. Friends and I have put our case on a number of occasions in the House and we have taken that position
      254
      because we are fundamentally committed to security of tenure for tenant farmers. We are concerned that the legislation will lead to inadequate security of tenure for tenant farmers. We regard that as, first, socially unjust and, secondly, not in the long-term interests of agriculture.
      I do not need to restate all the arguments—indeed, I touched on some earlier this afternoon in relation to monitoring. We believe that we should be united in our desire to encourage long-term, secure tenancies. People who wish to move into farming should have a proper opportunity to make a profit, build up capital and provide an honest living for themselves and their families. That is why we are committed to the family farm.
      We do not wish to stratify the industry; there may be a role for contract farming. As I said in the Second Reading debate, some people begin farming with contract farming companies and then enter the industry in their own right. We have set out our proposals for encouraging new entrants to go into the industry which I believe will prove extremely constructive.
      We have tackled the issue of milk quotas which is a real barrier for young farmers entering the industry. Often in the past, people entered that type of farming because of the regular milk cheque. We have tackled the issue of the way in which county council holdings have ceased to provide a stepping stone into the industry. There are many reasons for that, for which I not blame the present Government. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) for his intervention.
      I blame the Government for the fact that many Conservative-controlled councils have been selling those holdings and we are concerned that that will continue if there is further reorganisation of local government. We have already touched on our attitude to tenure and taxation and the prospect of taking advantage of European Union legislation on retirement for farmers—many of whom continue farming into their 70s, if not later—to create the opportunity for a son, or daughter or an outsider to enter the industry. I do not think that we need any lessons or lectures—to his credit, the Minister has not sought to deliver any—about encouraging new entrants into the industry.
      Earlier this afternoon, I referred to the Northfield committee report, which contains a lot of viable material. The committee had a balanced membership—I think that is to the credit of John Silkin, who is no longer with us—which was certainly not loaded in favour of the Labour party. I shall refer to its report later.
      I shall deal with the question of security of tenure most constructively by referring to the remarks of the Minister of State in his winding-up speech on Second Reading. He was challenged by me on the issue and said:
      "I was interested in a press release that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East issued on 18 November 1994, in which he said:
      `Security of tenure is essential for the family farm' —
      as though that was a newly-discovered truth, which had not dawned on the Conservative Benches for many a long year. I was surprised that neither he nor his hon. Friends mentioned the construction of the Bill in clauses 1, 5, 6, 7, 16, 23, 24 and 25, all of which concern various aspects of security that are central to the subject of agricultural tenancy".
      The Minister went on to say:
      "I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows an inability to distinguish between the period of an agreement and the security embodied in that agreement. The Bill is drafted in terms of the

      255
      definition of farm business tenancy: willing partners come together, in mutual interest, to define their rights and responsibilities, and to make very clear one with another the length of time that they agree a tenancy should run. The Bill gives precise legal protection on the ending of a tenancy. Once agreed and signed, it is cast iron and copper-bottomed and provides excellent security of tender. That is the whole basis and construction of the Bill."—[Official Report, 6 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 105.]
      It may be that there is a difference in language, but the phrase "security of tenure" is explicit, in my view, in that it does not refer to whether a contract will be honoured, nor to how much money a farmer might get if the contract is terminated prematurely. It does not refer to how copper-bottomed a five-year or 10–year tenancy may be. It is either about lifetime tenancies or about long-term fixed tenancies. In relation to the individual farmer and his family who are running a farming business, the phrase "security of tenure" relates to the security that he has to go on farming.
      The legislation will transform the position of new lettings, and there can be no argument about that. The new farm business tenancies will come into operation on 1 September 1995 and, for the purpose of shorthand, I shall describe these as Tory tenancies. Already in place—and, as the Minister pointed out, not interfered with by the legislation—will be the traditional tenancies governed by earlier legislation, and for shorthand I shall call them Labour tenancies.
      Within the group of Labour tenancies, two types of tenancy operate. The first group are the tenancies governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1976, which is still operative in relation to some tenancies and about which the Minister feels strongly—as, I am sure, do many other owners of land. My local newspaper described his speech on the matter at the Conservative party conference last year as a personal attack on me. I am not sure whether that was a fair judgment, but the right hon. Gentleman certainly articulated his bitter opposition to the principle that a son or daughter of a tenant farmer, who has worked perhaps for the bulk of his or her life on the holding, should have a qualified right to succeed to the tenancy.
      Nothing that has been said in the debate has altered my view on the subject. The Minister may accept that something should be encouraged on a voluntary basis, but I believe that there is a case for encouraging a working son or daughter on a tenant farm to have the opportunity to succeed, and we enacted legislation to give a guarantee of that. There is a Scottish tradition in that area, and I accept that it has not existed for the same duration in England.
      The second type of Labour tenancy is the tenancy governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984, which the Government enacted to remove the succession provisions. The tenancies are governed either by the 1976 Act or by the 1984 Act, although there was a consolidation of the legislation in 1986. Basically, the new Tory tenancies will be in place from 1 September 1995. We also have the Labour tenancies, within which are two groups—those with succession rights and those without.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Let me make clear that we have no antipathy at all to the idea of children succeeding their parents in farming. My neighbour in Somerset is a fifth generation tenant, and a fine farmer. The trouble is that
      256
      the introduction of the compulsory legal principle has not preserved the system, and it has so dried up the supply of tenancies that it has become a dead letter. It is the failure in reality—as to the theoretical principle—to which we have objected, and we have come to believe that radical reform is necessary.
      Dr. Strang: I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position.
      I am coming to what I regard as the crunch point. We want to give the legislation an opportunity to work. That means in essence that people who let land after 1 September 1995 must have the prospect of their contract remaining. Despite the fact that I have not used the word "retrospective" in the context of the Bill, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word on this issue.
      In that sense, I am happy to give an undertaking that a Labour Government will not legislate retrospectively, and any new tenancy created after 1 September 1995 will be honoured. If we can treat the tenancies as contracts, a contract for five years will last for five years if the legislation provides that it can continue by mutual agreement. The same will apply should the contract be for 10 years, 50 years or whatever. No Labour Government will legislate to break that contract or tenancy. I cannot be clearer than that.
      We are saying to the industry—including the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the young farmers organisations in Wales and England which supported the agreement that provided the basis for the legislation—that we will honour the position that they have adopted and that the Government have put into the legislation, and we will give it an opportunity to work.
      Mr. Waldegrave: May I be the first to welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment? It will help. Although there is no doubt about what he said about no future Labour Government breaking a contract, would such a Government convert a tenancy into some other form of tenancy? The fear may be that a five-year or 10–year tenancy will be converted into a tenancy of some other form which might last longer. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that contracts will be honoured as they are made?
      Dr. Strang: Yes, that is correct.
      Mr. Edward Gamier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Strang: I shall give way, although I wish to wind up my remarks. A number of hon. Members—particularly Labour Members—wish to speak.
      Mr. Garnier: I accept and welcome the undertaking on retrospection that the hon. Gentleman has given the House relating to what he calls "Tory tenancies". Can he explain in a few words the Labour party's policy on any new legislation that it might wish to introduce and that might affect tenancies not covered by the 1995 measure?
      Dr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a constructive intervention. Of course, any Labour Government reserve the right to enact new legislation in this area. It may well be that, in 10 years' time—from the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman will appeal to a Labour Government to introduce new legislation. The point is that legislation such as this will relate only to the

      257
      new tenancies. It may apply to tenancies that commence in 2010, or whenever. [Interruption.] Did I say that the hon. Gentleman would be in opposition in 10 years' time? I am sorry. It may be during the next Parliament, or the one after—I am not sure. It is conceivable that the next Labour Government will be in power for longer than the Conservative party. Sixteen years is long enough—not long for an agricultural tenancy, but long enough to have the Conservative party in office.
      We welcome the constructive way in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and other members of the Committee helped to achieve security and protection for tenants, which we value.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The industry will welcome the hon. Gentleman's important clarification on retrospective legislation. If a Labour Government wanted to legislate on existing tenancies when they could naturally be brought to an end, when the period of notice to quit could operate, would such tenancies be subject to the provisions of new Labour legislation—or would they be allowed to continue on the existing terms for a further period?
      Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me into impractical areas of debate. I accept his good intentions, but I met the essential point that anyone letting land on the basis of the Bill from 1 September 1995 will know that the contract between landlord and tenant will not be altered by Labour legislation.
      We want to give the Bill an opportunity to work, but we will vote against it because we are committed to the principle of security for tenants. The key point is that we will not implement legislation in a way that would prevent the Bill working as the industry and the Government want it to work.
      6.11 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on Third Reading of what has been described as a milestone in landlord and tenant legislation. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who piloted the Bill through Committee. They listened to the Country Landowners Association, National Farmers Union and associations representing young farmers and tenant farmers. I ought to declare that I am a member of the CLA and NFU and I farm, so I have an interest in the Bill—although its provisions do not affect me directly.
      Land in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be farmed to the highest possible standard. The Bill can only enhance that standard. The word "stewardship" has not been mentioned, but it should be. All involved in agriculture should give stewardship the highest priority.
      It was a remarkable milestone for all sections of the industry to reach an historic agreement on a deregulatory measure. All sides of the industry having agreed, my right hon. Friend drafted a Bill and brought it before the House, and today we are giving it a Third Reading. Is it not remarkable that the only people who cannot see that it is a worthwhile measure are Labour Members? Surely it is better to have a let farm than one that is not let. When, under Labour in 1976, a farm was let to a tenant and
      258
      succeeding tenants, the letting market dried up almost overnight—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) knows full well.
      It is sad that Labour Members will vote against the Bill tonight, because they will be sending a signal to the industry not to let farms under its provisions. There are 10,000 short-term agreements.
      Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of distorting the position. We made it absolutely clear that new tenancies under the legislation would be honoured. I hope that he will not seek to muddy the waters and give landowners or tenants a misleading impression.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome that intervention, in the sense that I hope to be proved wrong and hope that the industry will have the confidence to let under the Bill's provisions, because I desperately want a flourishing landlord and tenant sector. The Opposition's stance can only endanger that process, which is why I appeal to them to think again, even at this late hour. I say as loudly and clearly as I know how that it is better to have a let farm than a farm not let.
      I desperately want to encourage young farmers. As I said on Second Reading, the average age of tenants is 55. I want it reduced considerably. Only new blood and fresh and innovative ideas will make the industry flourish. I fear that the Opposition will impede that process.
      I fear also for the 40,000 workers in agriculture. Whatever Labour does, farms will inevitably become bigger. The one thing that will accelerate enlargement is the absence of a flourishing landlord and tenant sector. I want lots of people letting farms under the legislation, and I am confident that the current 10,000 short-term arrangements to skirt the 1976 and 1986 legislation will be encompassed by the Bill.
      Even if the average size is only 100 acres, that will produce the 1 million acres that the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors predicted. Even the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) predicted 3,200 new tenancies on an average farm size of 250 acres. On Second Reading, I calculated that would produce a total of 750,000 acres. There is no disputing the fact that a substantial amount of land will fall under the scope of the legislation.
      Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of the short lets to circumvent existing legislation and Gladstone v. Bower agreements were made by established farmers and cover small parcels of land tacked on to an already flourishing situation? Also, not all Opposition parties support the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I have misgivings, and I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain why.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: In my experience, the number of short-term agreements are increasing rather than decreasing. The number of contractual, Gladstone v. Bower agreements have actually increased over the past few years, because of uncertainty in the industry about embarking on full landlord and tenant letting under the 1986 legislation. I hope that the Bill will reverse that trend. I agree with the Opposition that longer-term lettings are wanted; only then can the tenant secure borrowings and plan for a proper farm system. I hope that the industry will have the confidence to let for reasonable terms, to give younger tenants more opportunities.

      259
      I pay sincere tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for playing a major part in changes to inheritance tax legislation: equalising relief for let and vacant land is a major plank and will encourage lettings. But I would like him to go slightly further. There are two other tax impediments that may—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Inhibit?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      There are two other tax impediments that may inhibit landlords in letting land. The first one is income tax treatment. Vacant farms come under schedule D and are treated as a trade. Let farms come under schedule A and are treated as an investment. The reliefs that are available under A are much more limited than under D. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give consideration to the equalisation of tax treatment.
      The second tax anomaly that will inhibit landlords in letting farms is treatment under capital gains roll-over relief. Again, there is different treatment for let and vacant farms. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will consider whether that anomaly can be overcome.
      I look forward to speculating on what the Bill, when enacted, will do. I would like the situation in the commercial property letting market to apply, whereby let commercial properties are worth the same—in many instances they are worth more—as vacant properties. That would be entirely healthy for agriculture. It would mean that let land and vacant land values were more nearly the same. At present, there is a 50 to 75 per cent. differential. I should like values to come much closer together, and that is possible.
      I was discussing the Bill with some large institution farmers. They are beginning to have some exciting ideas about how institutional money might be put into agricultural land. Under the Bill, they would have the certainty of getting vacant possession at any time they wanted it. They would be able to let land to new, young entrants into farming. I hope that they would do so, for that is precisely what we want to see. I hope that that will happen because at this moment some agile minds are considering how it might be achieved.
      Mr. Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall be delighted to give way to a person with an agile mind.
      Mr. Tipping: I am delighted to be thought to have an agile mind. I shall use that agility in trying to establish the hon. Gentleman's purpose. Earlier, he talked about getting new, young farmers on to the land, but now he is talking about institutions being able to get rid of new, young farmers when they want to do so. Clearly there is a contradiction.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Either the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he did not understand what I was saying. I was talking about more institutional money being available to buy land specifically to let to younger tenants. That is exactly what I want to see. At present, younger people cannot afford to buy and farm the bulk of the agricultural land that is held. The capital involved is so
      260
      great and the return on capital so low that unless someone has a huge amount of capital behind him or is lucky enough, as I was, to inherit a farm, it is impossible to enter the industry.
      As a Conservative, I want to encourage young entrepreneurial individuals, who perhaps have been involved in the industry as contractors or merchants, for example. I hope that they will have the opportunity to farm a small amount of land, thereby getting on to the farming ladder. We want to encourage entrepreneurial and innovative people to go into the industry for the benefit of that industry, so that our industry remains the most efficient in Europe.
      I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. I urge the House to give it a Third Reading as soon as possible so that it can be put on to the statute book forthwith and the industry can benefit thereby.
      6.23 pm
      Mr. Enright: First, I apologise to the Minister for having to be absent during his wind-up speech. There was a joint meeting of the all-party rugby league group. I had to attend to put the case for the Featherstone rugby league club. I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker is even more devoted than am I. It was imperative that I should attend.
      I was saddened to hear the Secretary of State praise the statement from the Tenant Farmers Association. In a previous incarnation, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for good and clear English. I shall read one of the crucial passages in the statement, which states:
      "Instead, much professional effort is devoted to using the short term alternatives within the present law (such as 'Gladstone Bower' lettings which can not even be as along as two years), MAFF approved lettings (no more than five years and effectively unrepeatable) or to creating contrivances to avoid it."
      That is the most appallingly unclear English that one has ever come across.
      I invite the Secretary of State to read the conclusions. The last sentence, which is the last place in which one should make a mistake, is, to put it mildly, wrongly punctuated. The grammar and punctuation are wrong, but above all the reasoning is wrong.
      No one would disagree with the Tenant Farmers Association that the present situation is not good. Indeed, it is bad, and it needs to be made better. The Bill merely makes it less worse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has said, it will not create a vehicle to bring about the sort of justice that we want.
      I shall briefly touch upon a subject on which the Secretary of State is well versed—the question of foedere aequo, foederi in aequo. We, the Opposition, are trying to introduce a measure of fairness in agreements. It is not fairness when City institutions become involved. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) sounded, although he tried to clarify his position later, like someone seeking a sort of highland clearance. He did not give the impression that he was seeking to encourage the future of real tenant farmers.
      We in the manufacturing industry and we who represent mining areas know only too well the destruction that can be caused by short-term City funds. City funds are exactly the sort of funds that are not required for the long-term interests of farming. I am amazed—I apologise,

      261
      Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not amazed, because the hon. Gentleman is a Tory. I am not amazed that he could say such a thing.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman misinterpreted what I said. There are few farmers who do not have some form of City funds, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, involved in their operations. They are called farm overdrafts. What is better: to have a long-term City institution owning the land on which they have a low return or for the tenant farmer to have an overdraft in the knowledge that short-term interest rates can fluctuate violently? Within the past three years, interest rates have increased to over 15 per cent., and that is base rate. What is better: to have a long-term stable arrangement or a short-term unstable arrangement?
      Mr. Enright: If I had any evidence that institutions were lending money long-term on stable low interest rates, I would be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Such evidence is not available. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the banks. They have been truly appalling in the money that they have been screwing out of farmers and of people in many other industries.
      We are maintaining that this is not a fair Bill. It does not achieve parity between the landlord and the tenant farmer. The Government may say—it is a philosophy—that the landlord should be completely in control of what, is happening, but we, the Opposition, would maintain that that gives the landlord the ability considerably to exploit tenants.
      There is talk about a massive consensus. The Secretary of State has said that there is a consensus between the Tenant Farmers Association, that well-known follower of Gracchi agricultural reform, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union, which was so radical in the beliefs that it professed. We have also the young farmers, like David Archer, who is trying to get a contract for a new firm. These radical organisations are coming into agreement. What an amazing thing. The amazing thing would be if they in no way agreed.
      The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said—I shall finish on this point, as many hon. Members wish to speak—that the Bill was near perfection. Near perfection, indeed. We shall certainly monitor him on that. If he thinks that the Bill is near perfection, his standards are so low and his aims are in the mud instead of to the sky. We want to look after the long-term tenants, who are still being thrown to the wolves in the Bill.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Garnier: I almost feel that I should congratulate the honourable Agricola for Hemsworth on his restraint during the past few minutes, for using only six Latin words during his entire speech. In Committee, I think that he spoke Latin on a number of occasions. On Second Reading, he may also have used Latin as well. It is a great pleasure to see someone who descends from the great Latin scholars and who farms so heavily the gooseberry patches of Hemsworth—[interruption.] Is it rhubarb? That such great rhubarb should emanate from Hemsworth is something to be noted and welcomed.
      Mr. Enright: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be aware that, in previous years, the
      262
      fields in Hemsworth used to vote Conservative. I hope that he has taken on board the fact that this year they are voting Liberal Democrat.
      Mr. Garnier: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is bragging or complaining. Perhaps we will draw a veil over his personal problems.
      The Bill is widely welcomed throughout the industry, and it is a matter of some sadness that the most notable thing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) found able to say during the course of his short remarks was—I hope that I quote him correctly—we stand four square in opposition to the Bill, because we are concerned for security of tenure. I paraphrased that. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has, with his colleagues, come forward with that attitude.
      We had an interesting discussion of the detail of the Bill in Committee. Many amendments were tabled and withdrawn by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). It was a sensible Committee, if I may say so, and we have come up with a good Bill. It generated an almost total lack of controversy—I make no criticism of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who represents the Liberal Democrats and who was unable to be in Committee for the most part—because it came to the House and to another place with the support of the whole industry. I shall not go through the acronyms of all the bodies that are represented in the TRIG. None the less, the Bill is welcome, and I am here today to welcome it on behalf of my landowning and tenant farmers in Harborough.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has already mentioned the other wing or leg of the argument that will help to increase the amount of acres let in England and Wales—the alteration to the capital tax provisions. It is worth mentioning that it is not every Cabinet Minister who can persuade the Treasury to yield to his blandishments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is to be congratulated on the subtle and effective way in which he has managed to persuade the Treasury to accede to his requests. It was a worthwhile aim, and I am delighted that he was so successful.
      I have heard from a number of landowners that, because of the Bill, they will definitely let land as from 1 September. I regret that they may change their minds or feel rather less comfortable in having made those promises having heard the attitude of the official Opposition. It is regrettable that the Opposition are not coming at the Bill in the spirit in which it has been presented to Parliament and in the spirit in which it has been welcomed by all other interested parties.
      In my view, the Bill restores balance. It is fair to say that, in the early 19th century, the balance in the relationship between the landlord and tenant was almost entirely in favour of the landlord. That situation pertained throughout the 19th century. Throughout this century, particularly since the second world war, the balance has gone too far in favour of the tenant, to the detriment of farming and of landowners. I believe that the Bill at last redresses the balance, so that both sides can now look at each other with equality. It is a pity that the Opposition do not recognise that.
      It is perhaps ironic that the Opposition, who are so against the hereditary principle when they discuss the other place, should be so in favour of the hereditary

      263
      tenancy legislation of 1976. I wish that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who has made it clear that he will not act retrospectively, in the unlikely event of the Labour party coming to power in some future time, on tenancies under the Bill, had been clearer. He inaccurately described them as Tory tenancies. I think that industry tenancies is more accurate, or TRIG tenancies would be the better short form. It is a pity that Opposition Members seem to be putting in doubt the confidence of farmers and landowners who so avidly want to see the Bill work, and who want to see additional land let to new and young entrants to farming.
      6.35 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: I shall be brief, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
      Undoubtedly, there was a need for the Bill. In the 1900s, 90 per cent. of the land was let. Today, the figure is 30 per cent. I suppose that the Bill is an attempt to address that problem. I do not support the Bill, because of some misgivings, which I shall briefly enumerate now. Although balance is important, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, there has to be balance between the rights of the tenant and those of the landlord. I do not think that the Bill addresses that balance.
      Farming is, of course, a long-term enterprise. There is no such thing as real, useful short-term farming. I do not know what the future holds, nor do I profess to have a monopoly of wisdom on the subject. I sincerely believe, however, that there are problems in the Bill.
      It is quite evident that there will he short-term lets, as they are more beneficial to landlords. Short-term lets are not good for the environment. They are not particularly good for communities, for tenants or for the land at large.
      I made the point in Committee about Tir Cymen, the Welsh version of country stewardship schemes. I am still not certain about the answer. Will the tenure schemes that are typically available under that scheme be available if land is let, say, for two or three years, or whatever? I still wish to hear from the Minister at some stage about that matter.
      The farming industry is the backbone of our rural communities. It is a long-term occupation, and in my view is unlike any other business, because more often than not it provides a home as well. There is a village in my constituency where virtually every farm is let. Some 90 per cent. of the occupants of the village are directly involved in farming. It is important, therefore, that the Bill should work.
      We understand full well the notion of freedom of contract, the equality of bargaining and so on, but one must look at supply and demand. There is an insufficient supply of land, but there is a great demand. Therefore, that in itself will dictate terms that may well be onerous for all concerned.
      The amendments today are welcome and useful, and I wholeheartedly endorse each one of them. They show that the Minister listened to debates in Committee, for which I am grateful.
      Earlier, the Minister curtly put down one of his hon. Friends, saying that he had no control over the timing of the RICS guidelines. That was disingenuous, because, on many occasions during the passage of the Bill, he relied on those
      264
      coming forward. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was right: we may find ourselves in no man's land—I am sorry to use the word "land"—where people go on to the land without the necessary back-up of those provisions. Therefore, I again request the Minister please to bring as much influence as he can to bear on that point.
      The change in inheritance tax has been mentioned. That measure is a double-edged sword. If the big investors move in, land values will escalate, which cannot be good for farming. With regard to the retirement scheme for farmers, European Union moneys are available, so why do we not apply for them?
      I listened carefully to the debate about monitoring. It is 100 per cent. vital to many communities that we monitor the Bill. In my constituency, one family in every five relies wholly or in part on agriculture. That is how important the Bill is to me, as it is to many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      I said on Second Reading that the Bill was a curate's egg, that it needed strengthening and bettering in many regards, but I am afraid that in many respects that has not happened. However, I do not have a monopoly on the future. I sincerely hope that the Government are right, and if they are, I hope that I shall have the good grace to admit it in due course.
      I had misgivings, and I still have those misgivings. Monitoring the situation and making available parliamentary time if necessary are musts. I appreciate that the Government have in all sincerity tried to address the problem. I hope that they have been successful, but I still have grave doubts about it.
      6.41 pm
      Mr. Tyler: I have only one major quibble with the way in which the Minister introduced the Third Reading, and that is that he implied that his was the parentage of the Bill. If the Child Support Agency was to look at it more carefully, it would say that he might be the adoptive or the foster parent, but the real parentage was that of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group.
      We should all pay tribute to the way in which the industry came together, without which the legislation would have been impossible. There was no sign of it coming forward from the Ministry until the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the young farmers got together. That is a tribute to the work they have done.
      I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for persuading the Chancellor to make the important change in inheritance tax, but I remind him, as I reminded the House on Second Reading, that three years ago his colleagues on the Finance Bill Committee voted down just such a reform when I put it to that Committee. We must make it clear that that is not a concession; it is to try to introduce the end of some discrimination in tax. That is why hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is long overdue.
      There seems to be some consensus now in the House that the present situation with regard to tenancy is unsatisfactory. Even the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said that the Bill would make things less worse. If all the legislation that came before us in the House and emerged into the open air made things less worse, we would all be much happier than we sometimes are at the standard and quality of legislation that is passed.

      265
      Earlier, the hon. Member for Stroud said that it was his objective to ensure that the purpose of legislation such as this was to ensure that there were freely negotiated contracts. It seemed from what the Minister said in introducing this debate that he concurred. I suggest that freely negotiated contracts are not themselves the end; they are the means to an end. The ends upon which we should surely all be agreed are threefold.
      First, there should be ready access for new entrants. I think that that is agreed throughout the House. Secondly, we should seek wider involvement in agriculture generally. It filled with me with dismay to hear the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) expecting a greater involvement of the large City institutions in the ownership of land. That is not the purpose of this legislation. Surely what we should be seeking is the greater involvement of a number of smaller enterprises, giving them more opportunity. The short-termism of the City institutions is not on all fours with the long-termism of stewardship to which the hon. Member referred.
      Thirdly, we want to try to give wider opportunities to those who are making a success of agriculture, but on a small scale. When they seek to expand those opportunities, we want to ensure that more land is available.
      It follows from all this that our previous discussion this evening about monitoring the success of the new tenancy, arrangements, the new farm business tenancies, will be extremely important. We all take seriously what the Minister said in answer to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House.
      It also follows that we need a period of stability to build up the confidence to enable those changes to take place. Therefore, I too welcome the declaration from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition will not be seeking to introduce any retrospection if and when they are in a position to review the legislation.
      I imagine that it is unlikely that any incoming Government, of whatever colour, or of multi-coloured, would seek to undo this legislation in a relatively short time, unless it had clearly gone wrong. I hope that even the present occupants of the Treasury Bench would accept that, if things have clearly gone wrong, we shall all have to return to the matter within a short period.
      I do not have time to go into any great detail, but there is one nagging worry that I think hon. Members on both sides still have, and that concerns the timetable for the preparation and publication of the RICS guidelines. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that those are brought forward as speedily as possible, even if they are not in their final form, for consultation and fine tuning.
      Subject only to that particular concern, I welcome the legislation, and I hope for all our sakes that we will not have to return to the issue in the near future.
      6.46 pm
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank the Minister for handling the Bill with his usual courtesy. He has been wise in listening to the industry throughout its stages. Thanks must also be given to the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, the CLA, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, which have all worked extremely hard on the Bill during its passage here and in the
      266
      other place. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Carter said that he believed that they could fairly be described as the corporate midwives of the Bill.
      However, the Opposition must express some concern about the amount of horse trading that has occurred behind closed doors to arrive at the industry agreement so often referred to by the Government.
      The Bill addresses a serious problem in the United Kingdom. The decline in the numbers of people farming is a worrying trend. Farming is still the backbone of the rural economy in most parts of the United Kingdom—to save Britain's rural communities from terminal decline, we need a vital and energetic farming industry. To do that, we need urgently to increase the number of new entrants, and to decrease the average age of farmers, something which hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed.
      We all agree that, to increase the number of new entrants into farming, we must increase the letting of land. The Government, with the Bill, appear to believe that the only way to do that is to remove the security of tenure of agricultural tenancies.
      How can we believe that the Government are sincere about encouraging more young farmers to enter farming, when all they have done is take from the people for whom they are supposedly providing? All they have given young farmers is less security, less time to obtain a return on their investments, and less of an incentive for banks to lend them the original investment in the first place.
      We have been told that banks will be just as willing to lend money on even short-term tenancies, as the Bill provides a range of compensation measures. Those compensation measures will allow the farmer to regain his money from landlord-approved improvements, and some tenant right aspects. But have the Government heard that banks do not just want their original investment back—they actually charge something called interest? How is a small tenant farmer supposed to pay such sums back with only a two to three-year tenancy?
      The Government have been nothing if not constant in doing everything in their power to wreck any chance of growth in the British dairy industry. Their policy on milk quotas, the uncertainty in milk marketing, and now the Bill, all make it impossible for a new entrant to dairy farming. On Third Reading in the other place and on Report here, we have seen Government hostility to protection of milk quotas for tenant farmers.
      This is not a Bill for new entrants on small tenant farms. This is a Bill for big farmers to get bigger. As has been said, it will increase the ownership of land by companies with no interest in the rural community or the environment, but a single interest in increasing profits.
      We may have to consider the sector that we are discussing again when we are in government. It is encouraging that Conservative Members show so much concern about that possibility, but methinks they do protest too much: if people in the industry were not sure that we would form the next Government, they would not be concerned about our views on the Bill. As I have said, we may have to consider the sector again, but to encourage new entrants we shall not legislate retrospectively.
      The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) expressed sadness about the Opposition's decision to vote against the Bill. Let me

      267
      make it clear that, although we agree with the Bill's stated aims, we do not believe that it provides the way forward. It will not work. We consider ours a legitimate position, and we shall ask the House to reject the Bill for that reason alone.
      6.50 pm
      Mr. Jack: The Opposition have given a typically negative response to an enormously positive piece of legislation. Conservative Members have a right to know their attitude, and they have told us what it is—in uncompromising terms that will be noted not just in the House but in the world outside.
      I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for his kind words about the courtesies that were extended throughout the Committee stage. I think that there was a genuine wish for those proceedings to be conducted properly, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. At times, the discussion was learned, because I had experts behind me. I would not say that I had too many in front of me, but they made their contributions to the smooth passage of the Bill and the proper probing of areas that people outside the House wished to be raised within it.
      The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West spoke briefly about banks. It is remarkable—especially in view of the amendments relating to mortgages that have been moved this evening—that the banks have shown increasing enthusiasm for the measure. They see opportunities to assist agriculture and to make more land available. I rebut the hon. Gentleman's criticism of their attitudes.
      The positive side of the Bill was highlighted by my hon. Friend—my hon. and learned Friend, indeed; I congratulate him—the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). He praised the legislation, neatly—and forensically—exposing the Opposition's failure to understand our analysis of why it will succeed.
      I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the positive and assiduous way in which he suggested amendments, probed, put pressure on the Government in the right place, and enabled us to present useful measures today. He said that he considered the proposed length of tenancies reasonable, and I agree: it is in the interests of landlords to find good-quality tenants in whom they can have long-term confidence.
      That is the basis of the Bill. The Opposition fail to understand that it is based on mutuality—on landlord and tenant acting together for a common purpose. Both landlord and tenant will get a good deal, and there will be security to protect their respective interests.
      My hon. Friend rightly drew our attention to the importance of innovation in both human and monetary terms. In Committee, he also drew our attention to matters connected with privity. We shall have an opportunity to explore such matters further when we debate the Second Reading of the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) later this month. My hon. Friend will know of the warm way in which the consultation document has dealt with the
      268
      issues that he presented to the Committee so carefully, and he can take pride in the fact that the matter is to be addressed by the House.
      The hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Clwyd, South-West entertained us with their views on the Bill. I have already dealt with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly praised the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, but left what he described as a "nagging doubt" about his party's attitude. He spoke of a need for extra measures to encourage more lettings, but—as always happens with Liberals—did not let us into the secrets. He will be probed in due course. I welcome his comments about monitoring, however.
      The hon, Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) drew our attention to the importance of the RICS guidelines. I hope that I can make it clear that, while I cannot make clear statements on behalf of the RICS, I accept the need for an early publication of the document: people want to see the basis of the advice, and I shall convey the message to the RICS.
      We wrote to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 31 May 1994 about Tir Cymen. If points in my letter still require attention, I shall be delighted to deal with them in further correspondence with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Llwyd rose—
      Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. There is not much time left, and I want to deal with some of the other points that have been made.
      The hon. Gentleman expressed misgivings about the length of tenancies, and about the environment. I refer him to an excellent article by Marie Skinner in Farmers Weekly, to which I referred in Committee. Marie Skinner said that there was no direct relationship between the length of a tenancy and the quality of farming. I think that, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the terms of the type of agreement that can be reached between landlord and tenant, he will see that some of those environmental matters can be properly agreed.
      As usual, the hon. Member for Hemsworth took up points of detail. Let me pick up a failing that the hon. Gentleman revealed. He persisted in describing my right hon. Friend the Minister as "the Secretary of State"; let me refer him to section 1 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act 1919, which he will find singularly good reading. It gives the history of why we have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Let me also point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was David Archer who wanted to become a tenant of the adjoining estate land, and Simon Pemberton who denied him that right. I, too, am an "Archers" fan.
      Finally, let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). This week, The Daily Telegraph, of all newspapers, told us:
      "Labour seeks to capture 'Tory shires—.
      I read on with keen interest. The report said:
      "Labour launched a new attempt to capture the 'Tory shires' yesterday with plans to boost wages, business investment" and
      "jobs."

      269
      The Labour rural millennium beckoned; but only new Labour could, with that in mind, then decide to vote against the very Bill that adds a great new dynamic to the rural economy.
      It is the farm business tenancy that gives the real opportunity for innovation, initiative and youth, and allows the farm to be a centre for new business in a rural economy. It is what will enable the Tory party to sustain its support for that rural economy.
      The hon. Gentleman talked of security. He ought to read the Bill carefully. The termination of tenancies, rent reviews and compensation are all dealt with in exact terms. There is no doubt that there is security of tenure for anyone entering a farm business tenancy. Without this reform, we should have only an endless succession of Gladstone v. Bower short-term tenancies.
      This is a revoloutionary piece of legislation, which will ensure new lifeblood in rural England and in agriculture. I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 181.

      Division No. 129]

      [6.58 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Conway, Derek

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Arbuthnot, James

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cran, James

      Ashby, David

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dover, Den

      Bates, Michael

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Batiste, Spencer

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Beggs, Roy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Elletson, Harold

      Bellingham, Henry

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valléy)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evennett, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowis, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Forth, Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butler, Peter

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garnier, Edward

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clappison, James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hague, William

      Congdon, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      270

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Patrick, Sir Irvine

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Pawsey, James

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Harris, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Harvey, Nick

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Rendel, David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Richards, Rod

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Hendry, Charles

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hicks, Robert

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jack, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Sims, Roger

      Jessel, Toby

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Key, Robert

      Spring, Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sproat, Iain

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Knapman, Roger

      Stephen, Michael

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sweeney, Walter

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

      Sykes, John

      Knox, Sir David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Legg, Barry

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lidington, David

      Thomason, Roy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Luff, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Trend, Michael

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Trotter, Neville

      MacKay, Andrew

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Maclean, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Maclennan, Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Maddock, Diana

      Walden, George

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Malone, Gerald

      Wallace, James

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waller, Gary

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Ward, John

      Merchant, Piers

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mills, Iain

      Wells, Bowen

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Whitney, Ray

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Whittingdale, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wilkinson, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Willetts, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wilshire, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Norris, Steve

      Wood, Timothy

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Page, Richard

      Mr. Sydney Chapman, and

      Paice, James

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      271

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dobson, Frank

      Ainger, Nick

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Allen, Graham

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Eastham, Ken

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Enright, Derek

      Ashton, Joe

      Etherington, Bill

      Austin-Walker, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Battle, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bayley, Hugh

      Flynn, Paul

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Foulkes, George

      Benton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Galbraith, Sam

      Blunkett, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Boateng, Paul

      George, Bruce

      Bradley, Keith

      Gerrard, Neil

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

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Byers, Stephen

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hardy, Peter

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Henderson, Doug

      Church, Judith

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Connarty, Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ingram, Adam

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Denham, John

      Jowell, Tessa

      Dewar, Donald

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dixon, Don

      Khabra, Piara S

      272

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Terry

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Livingstone, Ken

      Redmond, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAllion, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCartney, Ian

      Salmond, Alex

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McLeish, Henry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McMaster, Gordon

      Short, Clare

      McNamara, Kevin

      Simpson, Alan

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Madden, Max

      Soley, Clive

      Mandelson, Peter

      Spearing, Nigel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Spellar, John

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Stevenson, George

      Martlew, Eric

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Maxton, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meale, Alan

      Timms, Stephen

      Michael, Alun

      Tipping, Paddy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Touhig, Don

      Milburn, Alan

      Turner, Dennis

      Miller, Andrew

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Watson, Mike

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mudie, George

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mullin, Chris

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Murphy, Paul

      Wilson, Brian

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Winnick, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Wise, Audrey

      Olner, Bill

      Worthington, Tony

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Pope, Greg

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Mr. Eric Clarke.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.14 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should draw your attention to a statement that has been made by Professor Graham Zellick, who I understand would be the new principal of the Queen Mary and Westfield college, as it has major implications for our proceedings.
I understand, that when Bills are laid before Parliament, they are part of the very process of legislating; that Parliament is supreme and Parliament decides. I should perhaps read you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a statement that undermines the credibility of what we are doing today. I will hand to the Clerks the statement so that you can be suitably advised.
It seems that Professor Zellick has said:
"Whether we experience a brief delay of two or three months or even if the Bill is more seriously obstructed and we are unable to secure its passage in this session of Parliament, we shall nevertheless be able to bring about the unified School of Medicine and Dentistry as an integral part of QMW and we shall do that by the beginning of the 1995/96 session whatever the fate of the Bill…
The QMW Council has already made the necessary amendments to its own Statutes and they can be approved by the Privy Council even though the Bill has not been enacted. That will put in place all the necessary structures. We can also do the same with our Ordinances, which do not require any external approval. The HEFC grant for all three institutions will be paid through QMW. We shall therefore be able to function as if the merger had been brought about … We have made enormous progress in the planning for merger and it is now too late to pull back or to delay. I am therefore pleased to report the unanimous view of the Merger Implementation Committee that nothing must now be allowed to impede progress … we shall be able to function as a single institution in accordance with the plans and policies already agreed as from August 1 or any date no later than the start of the new academic year."
That is a significant statement. It means that the managers of the new structure have already foreseen circumstances in which they will implement changes before Parliament decides upon the matter.
The statement is outrageous. You may wish to advise the House how we are to proceed. If these people have powers under prerogative arrangements whereby they can proceed without the approval of Parliament, that changes the nature of the speeches that hon. Members may want to make this evening. Hon. Members would be debating another issue, not whether we should proceed. They would be debating the basis on which those people would be able to proceed without a decision of Parliament.
There is another matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us have blocked the Bill. I have done so because I want to hear a fair discussion of the issues involved. What happens if people such as me are honoured by being selected to serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill? What happens if we sit on the Committee without knowing the precise status of the statement that I have read out? In deciding what action Parliament wants to take tonight, decisions might be taken that undermine the credibility of this place and in
274
particular the credibility of members of the Committee. Perhaps you might be in a position to rule a little later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) showed me a copy of the statement—it appeared in volume 18, issue 4, of Barts Journal for spring 1995, which was published a few weeks ago. It contains a lengthy quote that is attributed to Professor Zellick. I asked members of St. Bartholomew's hospital whether he uttered the words that are attributed to him, and they confirmed that he did. Bart's said that it was astonished and that the words were improper and a direct challenge to the authority of Parliament.
In backing my hon. Friend the Member for Workington I want to ask you this, and it involves deceit. A number of us—especially those of us who have blocked the Bill—have received representations from Professor Zellick and the sponsors of the Bill, telling us that it has to go through as a matter of urgency, otherwise medical education in east London will fall apart. We can debate the truth of that statement; it is a separate issue.
The professor has said that regardless of what Parliament does—even if we vote against the Bill tonight—the merger will go ahead. That suggests that the promoters have been sending opponents of the Bill, including myself, information that is deceitful. That is dishonest and it is part of an attempt to say that one can go behind the back of Parliament to the Privy Council. I am not sure how one can do so, and I have written books on the constitution.
The suggestion is that one can talk to clerks in the Privy Council office, who will talk to clerks on the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and between them the promoters, the Privy Council and the funding council can thwart the wishes of Parliament. There has to be something wrong with that procedure. I have never heard of it and nor, I am sure, has any other hon. Member of this House. I hope that you can give us guidance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I should intervene at this point. The Chair cannot rule on whether there is an alternative way to deal with matters—that certainly is not within my compass. If hon. Members have grievances and concerns, it would be appropriate to raise them during the debate tonight, which might influence the way in which they vote. I cannot assume the result of such a vote but, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that, if the Bill went to a Standing Committee, such matters could be dealt with in far more detail. At this stage, we should continue the debate. I can deal only with the issue before us, which is the Second Reading of this private Bill.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. What are we debating? Are we debating a Bill that would lead to the amalgamation of these colleges, and which is the only route to achieve that, or are we debating a Bill that might not lead to that amalgamation, but which permits another route being taken to secure it? We need to know. Surely it is for the Chair to rule on the status of the legislation. If it is not

275
within your area of responsibility, Madam Deputy Speaker, can the Minister clarify the position? What are we debating?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point clearly and at some length. If we deferred all business on the basis that we have imperfect knowledge, no business would be transacted in this place.
7.23 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
I shall forgo the pleasure of commenting on the interesting points of order, but I do not think that the legislative matters before the House are unique. At times, the royal prerogative has been used to achieve a legislative purpose. Indeed, one of the great complaints of many Opposition Members is that much European Community legislation is achieved not through this House but through the use of that prerogative. Frankly, that should not deter us from considering the Bill now.
Although the words quoted are of interest and would no doubt repay close study, I am not entirely clear. The quotation might refer to the fact that informal and ad hoc administrative arrangements have undoubtedly existed for some time between the institutions concerned.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it necessary to legislate if we are being threatened with the use of an alternative procedure? If that is the objective, why not simply avoid Parliament and pursue the other route? Why should we be subject to the whims of an external authority?
Mr. Shore: Such an alternative route would be far less satisfactory. I have not studied the matter closely enough and I am not saying that such a route for achieving the objectives of this Bill exists, but I have no doubt that it is far better for the House to debate the merits of it, as we are about to, than for it to read a pronouncement in the form of an Order in Council.
The purpose of the Bill is to unite three colleges of the University of London. Two are medical colleges—St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college and the London hospital medical college—while the third is the multi-faculty college of Queen Mary and Westfield. The Bill is promoted by those three colleges, with the overwhelming support of their councils.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am really worried. Before I listened to the introduction to the Bill, I had no knowledge of the facts that were mentioned during the points of order. My right hon. Friend says that it is better for us to debate the merits of this Bill, and I agree, but we are assuming that, if one debates its merits, one can decline to pass it and that that act would have force. I do not understand whether we are going through a sham, or whether we can not only debate the merits of the Bill but take a decision, and that worries me. The fact that my right hon. Friend apparently condoned the notion that the royal prerogative could be used to outwit Parliament shocked me.
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has clearly misunderstood what I said. I said that I did not approve of the alternative
276
way of enacting legislation. I drew attention to the many occasions on which I had protested against it, especially for European Community legislation, so let us be clear about that. I will proceed because I am not here to judge your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to second-guess what you have said.
The merger will bring together the clinical schools of the London and Bart's to form a single, strong faculty of clinical medicine. That faculty, with the faculty of clinical dentistry at the London and that of basic medical sciences at Queen Mary and Westfield, will constitute the new St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London hospital school of medicine and dentistry, which will be an integral part of the multi-faculty QMW.
The provisions of this short Bill are straightforward. It has a lengthy prologue of some 12 sub-paragraphs that recite a concise history of the formation of the institutions, beginning with the founding of the People's Palace technical schools in 1887, which was the forerunner of the present QMW and takes in the charter of the medical college of St. Bartholomew's, granted in 1921, and the constitution of the London hospital medical school, which was established in 1949.
Clause 3 provides for the dissolution of the existing bodies, while subsequent clauses provide for the transfer to Queen Mary and Westfield of certain properties, obligations, rights and powers to nominate members to education and other governing bodies. The appointed day is 1 August 1995.
There are three main reasons why the Bill should be accepted, and why I should be surprised if it proved to be a controversial measure. First, it is widely accepted that it is right to end the present separation of medical colleges from the rest of university life; secondly, the Bill is strongly supported by all three institutions; and, thirdly, it completes a process of merger between all three colleges, which already embraces their pre-clinical schools. I shall develop those points so that there can be no doubt about their meaning.
It has long been acknowledged that London is different from the rest of the country and much of the world in having medical training carried out by separate institutions rather than as part of multi-faculty colleges. There are cogent academic, administrative and financial advantages to be gained, not least by undergraduates studying medicine, from having medical training carried out within multi-purpose colleges. That point has been acknowledged many times and, dare I say, most recently by Sir Bernard Tomlinson.
The case for the Bill does not, however, rest on Tomlinson. The arguments and principles behind it are anything but new and go back many decades. Of particular relevance is the 1968 recommendation to the Royal Commission on Medical and Dental Education, which proposed that pre-clinical students—those in the first two years of their medical or dental courses—should study in a multi-faculty environment.
The unification of medical colleges with multi-faculty colleges has been going on all over London. Since 1968, a number of medical schools have been united, by private Acts of Parliament, with multi-faculty colleges of the University of London. For example, University College hospital medical school was united with University college in 1979; Kings College hospital medical school and Kings college, as a college of London university,

277
were united in 1983; St. Mary's hospital medical school and Imperial college were brought together in 1988; and the Middlesex hospital medical school was united with University college in the same year.
The Bill basically follows the form of those earlier Acts, as does the King's College London Bill, which is currently before another place and which will combine the united medical and dental schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's with Kings college.
My second reason for claiming that this Bill should be largely uncontroversial is that the merger is an agreed measure. I stress that point. All the governing bodies concerned have made that clear. In particular, Bart's hospital medical college has publicly stated that its decision to pursue an amalgamation with the London hospital medical college and Queen Mary and Westfield is its own decision, which it took because it thought that it was the right thing to do. In no sense is it a takeover bid, either by the London medical college for Bart's medical college or by Queen Mary and Westfield college for the other two.
The Queen Mary and Westfield council will henceforth contain two lay members from each of the present governing bodies of the two medical schools, with three academic members from those two colleges. Moreover, the Queen Mary and Westfield council is forming a committee on medicine and dentistry, on which both the London and the Bart's medical colleges will have still larger representation. As for personnel, the warden of the new school of medicine and dentistry will come from the London, and all those concerned want his deputy and successor to come from Bart's. Other senior appointments, including the chief administrative officer of the new medical school and, hopefully, the head of the new faculty of clinical medicine, will also be Bart's people.
My third reason for believing this to be a largely uncontroversial measure is that the merger which is the subject of the Bill is only the last stage of a move towards unification which was begun several years ago, and has already proved its success. In 1989, in accordance with the royal commission's recommendations, the pre-clinical departments of Bart's hospital medical college and the London hospital medical college, and their students and staff, were established in a purpose-built building on the Mile End campus of Queen Mary and Westfield college. They now constitute the faculty of basic medical sciences there. The three colleges are joined together to form the City and East London Confederation of Medicine and Dentistry. The proposed merger of the clinical departments is the culmination of that process and will build on the success that has already been achieved at the pre-clinical level.
One concern that was, and may still be, in the minds of some of my hon. Friends is the relationship between the Bill and the proposed merger of the two medical schools with Queen Mary and Westfield and the very different matter of the decision by the Secretary of State for Health to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. I deplore and oppose that closure decision in common with my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), whose constituents, like mine, are served so well by Bart's. May I make the point absolutely plain? If I thought that this
278
Bill would advance in any way the intended closure of Bart's, I would not be moving the Second Reading this evening.
The two medical colleges are entirely separate legal, financial and administrative entities from St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Royal London hospital. They are separate institutions. The Bill is not concerned with those hospitals and does not provide for the closure of Bart's. Whatever may or may not happen to Bart's—I very much hope that it will survive—there is a compelling academic case for the merger of those separate medical schools with Queen Mary and Westfield college.
The clinical training of medical students must take place where the patients are. Accordingly, teaching and research will continue at the main site of Bart's hospital at west Smithfield for as long as clinical activity remains at that site.
Mr. Sedgemore: I presume that my right hon. Friend is aware that, only two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital. Where will the patients be once the hospital is closed?
Mr. Shore: Obviously, the moment that the hospital is closed, students will not be able to continue their training there. The Secretary of State has already taken that decision, and I presume that it will come into effect over the next two years. I am not quite sure of the timetable. Clearly, if the hospital is closed, students can no longer be taught there. That is what we all wish to oppose. However, the medical colleges are separate institutions and their fate is not linked with that of Bart's. Students will continue to be trained, as some are now, in the Homerton hospital and other hospitals in east London.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would my right hon. Friend say that his view on the matter is universally held by all people who work in Bart's—the professorship, leading clinicians and consultants, staff members and nurses? Is his view a general view?
Mr. Shore: I would hesitate to claim a universality of opinion on the matter—I simply do not know. I have received no representations about the medical schools' merger which show that doctors, nurses and other people working in Bart's are worried about it. After all—I make to my hon. Friend the point that I made earlierpre-medical and pre-clinical schools are already joined together and located basically on the Queen Mary site in Mile End road.
The fact that the Bill's proposals have such widespread support is demonstrated by the fact that there are only two petitions against it. They are interesting. One of them, from a Mr. Dawson, appears to allege that the House is unlawfully constituted and that no Act of Parliament is valid unless Royal Assent is given from the throne. Interestingly, it makes no complaint about the principle of the merger.
The other petition is from two former students of Bart's, now residing and practising in Norfolk. They do not approve of the merger of the medical colleges. The weight of opinion is against them there, including that of their own college. However, they also object—this is where some of my hon. Friends may find common cause with those petitioners—to the proposed closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital.

279
Although a Bill is being introduced to effect the merger of medical schools, no such Bill is required to close the hospital. As the petitioners say:
"it is cause for serious public concern that such excellence has been threatened without proper democratic channels of debate in the Commons first being sought in regard to the merger of the two hospitals"—
that is, Bart's and Royal London hospitals. I have sympathy with that view, and the petitioners—the Bonner-Morgans—will be pleased to know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are pressing for an early debate and opportunity to discuss the proposed closure of hospitals in London, including Bart's.
It would be grotesque for the Bill to be jeopardised as part of some my hon. Friends' efforts to try to keep Bart's hospital open. Let us debate that issue when the time comes; the Bill has nothing to do with it. The creation of the unified St. Bartholomew's and Royal London hospital school of medicine and dentistry within a multi-faculty college of the university offers great scope to establish a medical and dental school of national and international distinction in teaching and research.
East London needs to have a strong medical school to match those being created in the south and west of the capital. Any delay in implementing the merger with, Queen Mary and Westfield will be harmful to students, to staff and to east London, and will not have any effect on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital.
7.43 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and to have listened to his cogent arguments for a measure that, as he has explained, will ensure that London retains its deserved international reputation for excellence in teaching and research.
As the right hon. Gentleman clearly said in his speech, London's research and academic excellence provides support for and gains from our health service. It helps our hospital and other services to respond effectively to medical and technological advances in treatment and to consider new ways of providing the best and most appropriate care. In turn, it benefits from centres of excellence in the health service providing a critical mass of work, a range of skills and expertise in clinical teams and high-quality treatment that enhances not just patient services but teaching and research.
That partnership is of mutual interest. It should be preserved and enhanced so that it continues to benefit academic, research and health interests. It should be strengthened.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way. I intend to make a short speech showing—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not utterly unprecedented for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and not to give way
280
on the Second Reading of a Bill? I have been in the House for 15 years and I have never known it before. Why does not he give way and take at least one intervention?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Having been here for 15 years, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is entirely for the hon. Member who has the Floor, whether he is a Minister or a Back Bencher, to decide whether to give way, and that is that.
Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman also well knows, it is the convention during debates on such Bills for the Government broadly to give their position and to go no further than that, which is what I intend to do from the Dispatch Box this evening.
It is important that educational excellence is strengthened. The principle of linking medical schools into multi-faculty colleges, with strong departments of life sciences, is, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, an important step in that direction. As he also said, that is consistent with policies that have been pursued for some years by the University of London. Such mergers offer academic and other benefits for education and research. Both my Department and the Department for Education support that principle, and we look forward to continuing progress.
The Bill's promoters are to be congratulated on their efforts to provide the means by which that aim can be accomplished. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the principles on which the Bill is based stand on their merits alone. Those principles will help to strengthen the fruitful partnership between medical education, research and clinical services. They will do much to help secure London's place at the forefront of research and development in medical science and technology.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way, as I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat and hold his tongue.
Mr. Malone: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am happy to welcome the Bill in the light of the opportunities that it presents. The Government see no reason why it should not be given its Second Reading and move quickly forward to Committee.
7.47 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is always a pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He made a fascinating and powerful speech. He has the capacity to be persuasive, even when he is wrong, and we heard a stunning example of that in relation to the European Economic Community. His rhetoric always moves us deeply. I mean no offence, and I hope that no offence is taken, if I say that I thought that his speech lacked substance somewhat and was based on what I would describe as sociological soundbites.

281
One thing that most of us desist from more than soundbites is sociology. Even if I did not have a temperament that tells me that sociology was not a science, I would have come out against it when I discovered that the Secretary of State for Health has a degree in sociology. No, I lie—she has two degrees in sociology. The mistakes and absurdities of her first degree in sociology led her to announce the closure of Bart's hospital two weeks ago. The mistakes and absurdities of her second degree in sociology have led her tonight to put up a frightened Minister who will not accept interventions to support what is effectively the devastation and closure, in spite of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, of St. Bartholomew's medical college.
I do not want to be too censorious, because I understand that the Secretary of State obtained her degrees in sociology at Essex university at a time when that was roughly equivalent to obtaining a certificate for attendance at a borstal institution. I do not want to be unkind to people who went to borstal, still less make invidious comparisons with the Secretary of State.
With the Bill has come a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Second Reading. I think that we can dismiss the validity of that statement fairly quickly and indeed, although I shall discuss them in more detail later, the validity of each and every argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made.
In that respect, while it remains fresh in the memories of people in the House, my right hon. Friend said that he had three arguments in favour of the Bill. The first was that, academically, everyone thought that clinical medical colleges should be inside multi-faculty universities and, in effect, clinical medical colleges would become the faculty of medicine in universities, and that St. Bartholomew's medical college would be the faculty of medicine at Queen Mary and Westfield college.
I say to my right hon. Friend that London university, of which St. Bartholomew's medical college and the Royal London hospital are part, has never issued a statement against free-standing medical colleges. I know because first some people from St. Bartholomew's hospital told me and then I had the sense to check so that I did not mislead the House. The university has never condemned the existence of free-standing medical colleges such as that which exists at St. Bartholomew's.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that the three institutions—the Queen Mary and Westfield college, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Royal London hospital—were massively in favour of the Bill. That appears in the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, who say that that policy has been
"enthusiastically adopted by Queen Mary and Westfield college and the two medical colleges and is supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England."
I am afraid that that is not true. That is bunkum.
The House should never have been told that by the promoters. I know that for a fact because I have spoken to scores of senior clinicians at St. Bartholomew's medical college and I have spent, including the Easter recess, the whole of the past fortnight researching the Bill, inquiring into the background and examining the past papers.
St. Bartholomew's medical college has supported the Bill only because of the decision in the Tomlinson report to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. Had that decision not
282
been made, even if there had been an argument for the merger of those two medical colleges—there might have been—we would not be here tonight. I can categorically assure the House that that is the case. I know that from my discussions with many of the people concerned, and I have documents and written evidence, which I will adduce to the House in due course, which show that to be the case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is a distinguished politician; indeed, a great politician. He served a Labour Government nobly, and if he stands next time, I hope that he serves the next Labour Government nobly. He is a Privy Councillor, whereas I am a small figure in this grand plot, this great canvas. Therefore, he knows better than I do the concept of force majeure. He knows that when someone is so much under siege, so much under attack and so readily being destroyed by forces all around, they sometimes have to accede to that to which they would not otherwise. That, put bluntly, is what has happened in this case.
I repeat, had there been no proposal to close St. Bartholomew's hospital in the Tomlinson report, we would not be here debating the Bill and St. Bartholomew's would have opposed it. I also say in passing—I shall discuss the matter in further detail later—that when one reads the statement of the promoters or listens to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, it appears as though there has been some seamless process between the production of the report of the Royal Commission on medical education in 1968 and now.
Incidentally, it is a small matter but the royal commission is referred to by the promoters as the "Royal Commission on medical and dental education". One would suppose that a promoter who drew up such material could get it right. So that there should be no doubt about it, I have the Todd report—the report of the Royal Commission on medical education, as it is described on the cover—in my hand, and it says:
"Whereas by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual bearing date the sixth day of August, 1965, We appointed a Commission, to be called the Royal Commission on Medical Education"—
so let us refer to it as that in future.
"Now Know Ye that We, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge and ability, do by these Presents appoint you, the said John Norman Romney Barber and Elizabeth Leila Millicent Chilver to be Members of the Royal Commission on Medical Education.
Given at Our Court at Saint James's the eighteenth day of September, 1965; In the Fourteenth Year of Our Reign.
By Her Majesty's Command. Frank Soskice."
From the wrong title of the Royal Commission on medical education, which is not a good start for Professor Zellick, who is not 1,000 miles away, we are given a background note that provides us with that seamless process. It starts from the Todd report of 1968, and then there is a huge jump. It says:
"In line with the 1968 Royal Commission, the pre-clinical departments from St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College and the London Hospital Medical College, together with their students and staff, were in 1989 established in a purpose-built building on the Mile End campus of Queen Mary and Westfield College as the faculty of basic medical sciences".

283
You do not need to be a mathematical genius, Madam Deputy Speaker, to realise that there is something of a gap between those two dates—a royal commission in 1968 and a move that took place in 1989.
Mr. Shore: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest, but the movement of opinion—let me put it like that—critical of free-standing medical colleges separate from multi-faculty universities is a growing one. I quoted four examples of previously separate medical colleges in London joining up with multi-faculty universities' departments. All four mergers that I mentioned took place before Tomlinson issued his report. There is evidence of a widespread and strong movement in the direction that I have suggested.
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall deal in some detail with the Todd royal commission, with the Flowers report of 1980 and with the Tomlinson report in so far as it affects St. Bartholomew's medical college. I shall go into enormous detail and present the counter—arguments, but I cannot do it all in one go. I am fastidious—I studied logic at Oxford and believe that there should be a beginning, middle and end to the story. I shall show that I am not trying to dodge the issue—
Mr. Peter Butler: I thought that the hon. Gentleman went to Essex university.
Mr. Sedgemore: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the Earl of Essex? I should have thought that that would be out of order.
I was talking about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney calls the predisposition or the changing nature of people's perceptions of a medical college. I have been able to study the papers in great detail, as St. Bartholomew's has made them available to me. It has also made available to me the responses of the Royal London and St. Bartholomew's medical colleges at each stage.
When one studies the papers, one finds that in 1968 the royal commission, which was a high-powered commission, presumably set up by the Government of which my right hon. Friend was a member, was set up, but then put on the shelf. That was what people did in those days: a royal commission was set up when there was a problem. When it was found that there was no money to do anything, it was put on the shelf. I do not criticise anyone for that.
There was what I call the brutalism of the 1960s, when it was thought that everything could be solved in a simple way, including problems in architecture, medicine and education. It was what those in the 1960s called the rational way—
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Socialism.
Mr. Sedgemore: That is the word that no one in the House understands any more. We are none of us socialists now, as someone might say.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was referring to the Conservative local government reforms of 1974.
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall not take up my hon. Friend's point as I want to keep to the subject and keep in your good books, Madam Deputy Speaker.
284
In the 1960s, when the report was being drawn up, there was a fantastic blueprint in London for every medical college—there were 12 of them if I remember rightly. The blueprint was to put medical school departments—pre-clinical and subsequently clinical—into multi-faculty branches of universities and make them university faculties. That was typical of all that happened in the 1960s.
I was a civil servant and I saw the same thing happen in architecture. Pluralism and diversity were taken away, as was any suggestion that anything could be successful and work if it did not conform to the pattern. From my time in the civil service, I have a good working knowledge of the way in which royal commissions work.
Some civil servants from the Department of Health obviously advised the high-powered medical figures, who I am sure also had some say. They convinced each other that there was one way of redeveloping medical education—the one way that my right hon. Friend has outlined. I believe that some people have since thought that it was a good way and some that it was a bad way. I shall come to why St. Bartholomew's has queried the method all the way along the line, contrary to what one would think, having heard my right hon. Friend and having read the promoters' note.
It is extraordinary that the promoters' note does not mention the Flowers report—it as though it did not exist. I find that bizarre. I shall quote from the report and produce the responses from St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college and the Royal London medical college. The bulk of the report involves the merger, but that is not mentioned in the promoters' note. I do not know how highly educated people managed to draw up the note and ignore that fact. Lord Flowers was not a fly-by-night; he was a distinguished academic and the vice-chancellor of London university.
The Flowers report into medical education was full of the merger and contained slightly different ideas. The report was carried out at the behest of the deans of the medical colleges in London. Lord Flowers was asked to undertake it because the Todd report had been put on the shelf—for the standard reason that there was no money—and no one had done anything about it. Nothing had happened in medical education.
Shortly after the switch of Government, we entered the 1980s. I was working in television and reporting in Manchester so I can remember the savage attack on university funds. It was inevitable that medical colleges would be included in that savage attack. The deans of the medical colleges said that they would not be able to cope with the way that things were going and wanted the vice-chancellor, Lord Flowers, to see whether he could point some way through and suggest how they could get by. I shall not lay out Lord Flowers' suggestions now, but I shall come to them later. They were roughly similar, but not identical, to those in the Todd report.
There was a fracas, and all the reports refer to the clash that was occurring, to academic arguments, to disputes between St. Bartholomew's medical college and the Royal London medical college. I have read all the annual reports of St. Bartholomew's medical college from the day that Lord Flowers reported up to the most recent report last year. I shall give some quotations from the reports later. I regret that, when one studies the archive reports for six days, with dust falling over one's hair, the picture of rosy consensus is shown not to be true.

285
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney did not say a word about the fact that Lord Flowers threatened St. Bartholomew's medical college and said that, if it did not go along with the merger along those lines, he would see that its funds were progressively withdrawn. He went to the General Medical Council to say that in person.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where did my hon. Friend hear that from?
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall read it out from some annual reports. It is contained in some of the documents that I have. Lord Flowers threatened that the medical college would run out of money and would be unable to function as a medical hospital. The dean at that time was Dr. Kelsey Fry. Not only do I have Dr. Kelsey Fry's annual reports and his statement, but I took the precaution of talking to Dr. Kelsey Fry about six days ago. I know that it is true because at the time, in 1985, Dr. Kelsey Fry asked me, as the Member of Parliament for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—whose constituents benefit most from the work of both the medical college and the hospital—to go to see Lord Flowers to discuss the merger.
I tried to warn Lord Flowers that what he proposed would not be accepted and would not work, but the great Lord Flowers would not listen to a Back-Bench Labour Member of Parliament. I knew him reasonably well because, when I was parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Lord Flowers used to be the umpire over difficult nuclear issues. But he did not listen to me, and did not receive the vibes that I gave him. I tried to tell him that there would be trouble and that there might even be trouble in the courts—and there was. There was a judicial review—there was astonishment.
The idea that St. Bartholomew's medical college could take the Royal London and the London university senate to court sent shivers through the academic medical world. There was absolute uproar. Despite his threats, Lord Flower's proposal was never introduced. Instead of a total merger of pre-clinical schools—which was the suggestion advanced at that time—there was a judicial review and the proposal was withdrawn because the university senate could not tolerate St. Bartholemew's proving that it had acted improperly. A confederation of east London hospitals was formed instead and the merger of financial and administrative arrangements which seemed so to fascinate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney—one would think that he was an ex-Treasury Minister—never occurred.
My right hon. Friend referred to the co-operation between the two colleges. They were not always at each others' throats, as I shall show in a moment. They established a joint curriculum for pre-clinical work and in the clinical sphere—where the merger is now proposed—there were joint activities in seven or eight areas. I will list those in a moment. That arrangement had worked since 1990 and, if it had continued, there would be no need for a Bill to introduce a clinical merger.
I return to my right hon. Friend's intervention-1 have not digressed; I built up my case in order to reply to him. The civil servants who advised the Todd inquiry about the only solution to the problems of medical hospitals also advised Lord Flowers when he drew up his report in 1980,
286
which contained similar suggestions. Those civil servants from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health advanced the same ideas.
That is the way bureaucracies work. For example, the Board of Trade supported the policy of free trade for 200 years until it found that it did not work. Civil servants tend to come up with the same sorts of policies. However, on that occasion their views were not taken on board, because a flexible arrangement had evolved which Bart's and the Royal London thought could work, but which did work.
I am not sure why we are under such intense pressure to pass the Bill tonight. The situation is even worse. The Todd report was published in 1969. Another report commissioned in 1979 is not mentioned in the preamble to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) served on the royal commission inquiry into health. I think that she is the only hon. Member in the House to do so and I know that she wishes to speak later in the debate.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has conducted extensive research, but perhaps he has not read that very lengthy royal commission report, which was allowed to gather dust like so many other reports.
One of its main criticisms of medical colleges at that time was that the curriculum was inappropriate to the needs of the national health service. The system of selection of candidates for the medical college was also criticised because it was found that they came from only one part of society. We also found that the NHS was grossly underfunded. Perhaps we were advised by different civil servants from the ones to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Sedgemore: I am sure that hon. Members will be genuinely interested in those comments, all of which are extremely valid. I shall pick them up, because I do not disagree with them.
The issue of the curriculum is heavily involved in the question of the two mergers—although presumably the pre-clinical curriculum has been dealt with already. At the time of the royal commission inquiry, one could have argued for a variety of reasons that medicine needed to be more scientifically based. I do not dissent from that view, and nor does anyone at St. Bartholemew's. Some hon. Members may not be familiar with the process of training to become a doctor. Students spend three years at a pre-clinical school achieving a degree in medical science, and they then spend the next two years achieving a degree in medicine.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, it was valid to claim that the medical curriculum did not place enough emphasis on science. That has been picked up on this occasion. Although it was not in the schema of the Todd or the Flowers reports, a merger—although not an administrative or financial one—of the Royal London and St Bartholomew's medical colleges eventually occurred in 1989, which came into effect in 1990. A new scientific curriculum was drawn up, which is identical to the one for students at Royal London and at St. Bartholemew's. It has worked and it is producing first-class doctors.

287
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley raised another point which I also believe is pertinent to the Bill. One of the biggest objections to the medical education curriculum was not touched upon by the promoters, but Professor Lesley Rees, the dean of St. Bartholemew's medical college, certainly discussed it with me. I am afraid that she will take some exception to the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that it was intended that she would become the warden after Sir Colin Berry. She has written me a note about that suggestion and she is hopping mad about it. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
She told me that the two medical colleges operate in poor areas of London. The colleges are very good at dealing with specialties and with standard acute medicine. However, many of the problems in the east end of London result from what occurs in the community. They are clearly linked to bad housing, unemployment, low wages and poverty. Doctors must be able to encompass the area of community health; it must not be left as a fag end for social workers to pick up. Doctors must know about the community, and their medical curriculum must take that into account. They must do their training in general practitioners' surgeries and in the community.
Professor Rees is not in the Gallery at present, so I shall spare her blushes. She is the dean of St. Bartholemew's, medical college and she is possibly the best dean in Britain. She has many outstanding qualities, but one of her greatest contributions to medicine has also been picked up by the curriculum of medical colleges all over London. Professor Rees ensures that students spend more time in general practitioners' surgeries as opposed to hospitals and she also ensures that they spend more time in the community. That has become part of the curriculum of the confederation of east London health authorities. That has meant a massive advance for doctors not only in east London but in London as a whole. The policy has spread as the General Medical Council has seen its value and the medical curriculum has been widened.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley expressed concern about the social intake in hospitals. One could criticise both hospitals—if anything, one could at one time have criticised St. Bartholomew's more than the Royal London hospital—about their intakes. I am not here to give a panegyric about Bart's. I am here to discuss a very important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will find that the social background of the intake of the hospitals has changed.
There has been a massive change in both hospitals in one respect, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will be pleased—the intake of women. Bizarrely, medical hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's and the London have, down the ages, been as antagonistic to women as some of the worst sectors of male chauvinism in Britain.
Mr. Malone: Such as the Labour party.
Mr. Sedgemore: The Minister tries to take me off the subject.
Amazingly, the first woman medical student to enter St. Bartholomew's hospital did so in the year 1850, and was called Elizabeth Blackwell. James Padget, who was in charge of the medical school at that time, interviewed
288
her and allowed her to enter Bart's, as she had a medical qualification from Zurich. He wrote some kind comments about her in his diary, and she wrote that she benefited from her experience at Bart's.
Of course, it could not last. When her sister tried to get into the medical college, people started to kick up a stink, and when some other women tried to get in, the matter was taken to the solicitors, and women were debarred from Bart's and the London for a long time. It was not until the NHS came into effect in 1947 that both hospitals were told that they had to admit women. Both agreed and, while I cannot talk about the London, I know that Bart's agreed that women should make up 15 per cent. of its. intake. In Bares—I imagine it is the same in the London—that figure is probably now 50 per cent. of the intake. My. hon. Friend for Cynon Valley made a third point which escapes me. It is not in my notes.
Mrs. Clwyd: It was the social background of the medical students who are taken into the colleges. One of our criticisms was that students tended to come from the same social background.
Mr. Sedgemore: I think that I have dealt with that point. My hon. Friend's third point may have been about the shortage of money.
I have not had time to read the royal commission's report on the NHS, although I have read the royal commission report on London medical teaching, the Flowers report and the Tomlinson report. I did, however, snatch a look at the royal commission's report tonight, as it dawned on me that I was missing something that I ought to see.
One very important paragraph in the 1979 royal commission report on the NHS is pertinent to the debate. It said that we needed to look after our teaching hospitals and to nurture them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley—who served on that commission—was involved in the agreement on that statement. The Secretary of State for Health is closing teaching hospitals and medical colleges, as well as hospitals. That is hardly nurturing them, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. To virtually shut down Guy's and most of its medical college and to close down Bart's and to destroy its medical college through the Bill is not nurturing; it is a destructive, wicked and evil force which civilisation will come to regret deeply, and which hon. Members—should it ever happen—will also come to regret.
I did not finish answering the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. Civil servants were involved in the Todd report, pushed the Flowers report into producing the merger and were then involved in Tomlinson. The same arguments have come out and—as I said to my right hon. Friend—this is the 1960s argument. There is an all-embracing argument for medical colleges which came from civil servants in the 1960s. The Tomlinson civil servants looked back to 1980, and those involved at that time looked back to 1968. We have a departmental policy stretching down two and a half decades, and that is nothing to be proud of.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney can say—it can be argued—that there is growing consensus. I say to him that the power of bureaucrats should never be underestimated. People think that they have beaten bureaucrats. Those involved at

289
Bart's thought that they had won after the Todd report, and in fact the report was accepted. They were told that there was no money to introduce the proposed scheme. They were threatened at that time, and also at the time of the Flowers report in the 1970s. Professor Shooter was threatened, just as Kelsey Fry, the dean of Bart's, was threatened more than a decade later.
Professor Shooter was threatened, and was told that, if he did not accept the Todd report, Bart's would suffer financially. Kelsey Fry—15 years later—was told that, if he did not accept the Flowers report, the same thing would happen. Then came Tomlinson, which said that the hospital would be destroyed and those involved would be left with no let out. The only thing that they could do was to hand over the property rights and the property to save some—but not all—of the jobs. That is what the Bill is about, and that is the brief answer to my right hon. Friend.
I would like to get on to my own speech now, as I have been answering the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who introduced the Bill. First, I shall present the broad picture, and then I shall get into detail and talk about world-class medicine and medical science. I shall then give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to answer the my points. I do not believe that we can debate this matter with soundbites, as the future of one of the greatest medical institutions the world has ever known is far too important for that.
We are here tonight to perform the last act in a plan to, wipe the name of St. Bartholomew's off the face of the earth. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced her decision to destroy St. Bartholomew's hospital. Tonight, we are asked to pass a Bill which, in the light of that decision, will destroy Bart's medical college. We are being asked to drink from a poisoned chalice, and then carry out a foul deed in a state of some intoxication.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: These sound like soundbites.
Mr. Sedgemore: I was going on to say that we are being pursued by soundbites. We are being asked to complete one of the foulest deeds that any civilised society could contemplate, and it is unnecessary. The decision debases and demeans this House, and it is a deed which, if carried out—I hope that it will not be—will make sinners and barbarians of us all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney says that he has a vision of how medical science should proceed. I must tell him that it is a delusion. He has not properly linked—I hope to persuade him ere the night is out—the way in which the closure of the hospital will destroy the medical college which, I believe, once came close to saving his life. We are being asked to pass a Bill that will create a nuclear winter, to be followed by darkness through eternity and beyond infinity. Why would any rational or sensible person wish to do that?
Mr. Nicholas Brown: How can it go beyond infinity?
Mr. Sedgemore: That is what writers call poetic licence. This is a private Bill and Labour Members are on a free vote. It is sad that Conservative Members are not. That does not seem to be the way to deal with a private Bill. I know that because my pair told me, and Ministers have asked me how long the debate will last. I replied that
290
that was not up to me. They said that the Government would not let them be away. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, know more about this than I do, but that seems an abuse of parliamentary procedure—but I shall not raise that as a point of order or ask anyone to do so.
The principal of the new combined medical college, if it is ever formed, will be Professor Graham Zellick—currently principal of Queen Mary and Westfield college. As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can use that as a point of debate, which would be appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) produced perhaps one of the strangest documents ever from a private Bill's promoter. When one presents a Bill to the House, presumably one wants to avoid antagonising Members of Parliament by saying, "Stuff you. We don't care what you do. We have no interest in the parliamentary process. I, Professor Zellick, will arrogate to myself the powers of a free Parliament. I, Professor Zellick, will behave in an authoritarian fashion and proceed with this Bill, whether or not you like it. I, Professor Zellick, will take over the rights, duties and authority of the House of Commons. I have worked too hard for my vision and I don't care what Parliament says. My vision must take precedent over Parliament's vision."
These days, there is an extraordinary temptation to slag off Members of Parliament—to say that we are all into sleaze, are over-sexed and waste our time. I have not been wasting my time. I spent a fortnight working hard on this Bill because I believe that it should be defeated. Are we helped when a professor who purports to want the House to pass a private Bill goes public and says that he will take the House on is more powerful than Members of Parliament and is over and above us?
I met Professor Zellick when the blocking motion was tabled. I shall describe the detailed proposals later. When the motion was tabled, the Bill's promoters, including Professor Zellick, Clive Priestley and John Travis Clark from the Royal London—Clive Priestley being the lay member of Bart's and an excellent man, asked me to meet them to discuss the Bill. I did not think that Professor Zellick was a bad man at all.
Mr. Skinner: Is he the principal?
Mr. Sedgemore: He is the principal of Queen Mary and Westfield college and will be the principal of the new combined college. I thought that Professor Zellick was well intentioned but uninspiring. I thought that perhaps he was an academic bully, but my experience of academics is that most of them are capable of behaving in a bullying fashion from time to time. Even some hon. Members are capable of that, although of course I exclude myself from that description.
At that discussion—as another hon. Member was present, this can be verified, and Professor Zellick made his own notes of the meeting—I think that the professor lacked judgment a bit. That does not make him a bad man or mean that he could not run the combined college reasonably well. I genuinely thought that, until I stumbled across a particular document. I told the House earlier that one of my hon. Friends showed me a copy, but I admit that I stumbled across it individually. No one will believe that. Everyone will think that somebody from Bart's medical college thrust it into my hands and asked me to come to the House to cause trouble. That simply is not true.

291
I was browsing through years and years of Barts Journal—not that of the hospital but that of the medical college. Volume 18, issue 4 for spring 1995 contains a letter from Professor David Tomlinson of the department of pharmacology at Queen Mary and Westfield college. It begins "Dear BJ"—B for Bart's and J for journal—and refers to an article in the Evening Standard stating that the Bill might be in jeopardy. According to Professor Tomlinson—I have verified this with people at Bart's, who said that it was true and who were themselves shocked—there is a huge direct quote of around 800 words from Professor Zellick. It says that people reading the Evening Standard might have thought that the Bill was getting into difficulties. He said that the Bill faced two obstacles. There were three petitions against it.
I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney for telling the House that now there are only two petitions against it. There was another, slightly longer and much more pertinent petition from the students of St. Bartholomew's medical college and Royal London medical college—
Mr. Shore: It was withdrawn.
Mr. Sedgemore: I know that it was withdrawn. Marcus Beadle signed it, and I spoke to him on the telephone when he produced it.
Professor Zellick insists that no pressure was placed on the people concerned to withdraw that petition. In an article in another issue of Barts Journal, Marcus Beadle talks about a hectic two weeks. From the moment the students lodged that petition, people started talking to them. Is that not typical? They did not talk to the students for months on end about their future—and they are only the whole future of medicine in this country. But when a private Bill appears, there is a bit of trouble and Parliament wants a democratic debate, there is a frisson. It is a matter of, "Come in, Marcus. What do you want? I'll do anything."
I do not blame Marcus Beadle for his action—I believe that it is called log-rolling politics in America. Marcus, and presumably students from the Royal London, went to see the great professor—the Dr. Strangelove of science, as we will call him after the House has heard this lot. The professor cleared up lots of points about the students union, lodgings, finance, space and money. But other objections were never cleared up—the more serious, medical objections to the Bill relating to massive uncertainty in east London about the whole health system, caused by the Minister who would not give way earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.
Much of that uncertainty has been caused by discussion following the publication of the Tomlinson report in 1992, until the Secretary of State's statement two weeks ago that the hospital is to close. Of course that will make a difference to the way that students work. The very existence of Bart's medical college is called into question.
What happens if we close a teaching hospital—I put the argument rather bluntly; my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney might think that it was put too simply, but often simple arguments are important ones—and close the medical college as well? I confess to being rather simple at times. What is the result
292
if a Bill is introduced to merge the college with the Royal London hospital medical college? I shall tell my right hon. Friend what almost anyone at Bart's will tell him, if he cares to talk to them rather than listening to the outward signs of Professor Zellick. The professor says, of course, that there is no connection, but that is absurd. Of course there is a connection. Is it thought that the doctors at the hospital are divorced from those who are providing medical training and undertaking medical research?
I know that there are some pure researchers. Indeed, I shall provide the data. There are many more pure medical researchers at St. Bartholomew's hospital at the Charterhouse square site than there are at the Royal London hospital. It should be said that the researchers do a wonderful job. I shall not demean them. Indeed, I shall name some of them as part of a separate argument. It must be understood that hundreds of doctors and consultants are teaching medical students. They are undertaking their research in departments that are on the hospital site. Their work is not being done in separate buildings. By and large, medical departments are at medical hospitals.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many of the consultants and practitioners may be on the site because they like working at the hospital. With that in mind, is there not a great danger that many of them will leave London and go elsewhere? As a result, the new school might lose the expertise of these extremely important people.
Mr. Sedgemore: I assure the House that my hon. Friend has picked up my next point and that there has been no rigging. He has taken up the point that I was about to make to my right hon. Friend the Bethnal Green and Stepney.
The greatest single cause of uncertainty and of people leaving St. Bartholomew's hospital and the medical college was the threat, and then the announcement, of the closure of the hospital. I know that that is true. Professor Lesley Rees, the dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college, gave me a list of people who were leaving. That was before the Bill was introduced. It is quite a long list. Of course, I do not want to encourage anyone else to leave. That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington made.
We are talking about an extraordinary centre of excellence. My main argument is that it does not need the proposed merger. Powerful medical teams have been built up. They treat patients and lecture to students. I know that that happens. I have talked to people who do both things. There are not two separate entities operating in two different worlds. The people involved are part of an ethos.
There is an academic culture such as we would find at Oxford or Cambridge. There is such a culture to be found at Birmingham, for that matter. There is one at Cardiff, and a very good one, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington will find an academic culture in the lakes.
Members of powerful medical teams have been attached to an academic culture, sometimes for 50 or 60 years. They have been attached also to a history that is 872 years old. That is the hospital. I shall go through the history of the medical college. There is a massive historical background of people striving monumentally for the same thing. I understand that. I do not say that Corpus Christi, the college to which I went at Oxford, is a piddling little place with 132 people who would benefit

293
from a mega-merger with Christ Church, Balliol or Queen's. Corpus Christi was a centre of academic excellence and a place which one could be proud to go to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has said, there have been hundreds of years of excellence at St. Bartholomew's hospital. When it is said that the hospital will be closed, the result will be to break up the medical, teaching and research teams. That is the point. Some of the letters that I receive make me so angry. People write, "Don't you know the difference between a hospital and a medical college?" With a degree in logic and having studied linguistic philosophy—the meaning of meaning—I should know the difference between a hospital and a medical college. I know also about the links between a hospital and a medical college. I know too that, when a hospital team is broken up, along with hospital treatment and research, staff will leave.
Professor Rees, the dean of St. Bart's medical college, has fought an heroic battle to save both a hospital and a medical college. The list that she showed me is all to do with the closure of the hospital. She made contact with Professor Frances Heidensohn, the chairman, as she likes to call herself, of the East London and City health authority, and said, "If you close this hospital, I shall lose more and more staff and the former staff will never be rebuilt. My staff will never go to the Royal London."
What about the list? It is a list of people who are not going to the Royal London. They have gone elsewhere. They have gone because a centre of academic excellence has been destroyed. I resent being told to learn the difference between a hospital and a medical college.
Ms Mildred Gordon: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that some years ago I went to see Professor Zellick. He made the case that the medical college at the London hospital, as it was then, was deeply in debt and badly run. He argued that it would be much better run by Queen Mary college. At that time there were no plans—if there were plans, they were hidden and had not been announced—to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. It seemed that there was no linkage. It may be that something needed to be done at the Royal London medical school. Nevertheless, it seems a great pity that that is now linked with the closure of a great hospital such as St. Bartholomew's. What has my hon. Friend to say about that?
Mr. Sedgemore: These matters are said to be linked and then they are said not to be. It is interesting to look back on what Professor Zellick has said and what is contained in the Todd, Flowers and Tomlinson reports. There is one significant difference. The Todd report never recommended the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital. Closure was not within a thousand miles of those who sat on the royal commission that considered the national health service. They may have had some doubts about some medical colleges and hospitals, but they did not recommend the closure of the world's most famous hospital. As I have said, closure was never in their minds. The Flowers report on the merger that appeared in 1980 was not drawn up on the basis that the hospital might shut and that we would see a cross-over of patient care, teaching and research and damage to them all.
It was only the Tomlinson report that recommended, first, that the hospital should be shut and, secondly, that a merger should take place. It was then that the entire position changed. It is the crass or wanton inability of
294
people to link those two features of the Tomlinson report that is producing such anger in me and, I imagine, in almost everybody on the Opposition Benches. I should say that most of our colleagues have left it to us to argue the case. That is fine because that is what we said we would do.
Mr. Skinner: I think that my hon. Friend must address his remarks at this point to a letter that I have received. I am one of the signatories to the blocking motion. As a result, during the past two or three days, I have received letters from people like this Dr. Zellick—or Dr. Strangelove, as my hon. Friend calls him—and various other people. The letter is from a fellow called Arnold Wesker. The only person whom I know by that name is a playwright, or was, presumably from the east end. This gentleman is now living at Hay-on-Wye. I suppose that that is where the luvvies are. He wrote:
"Dear Dennis Skinner
I've just been made an Honorary Fellow of Queen Mary and Westfield College."
He is now involved in its affairs, naturally. He is probably under the thumb of Dr. Zellick. Mr. Wesker, an honorary fellow of that quango, asked me why I have put my name to the blocking motion—
Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 1, Noes 167.

Division No. 130]

[8.50 pm

AYES

Campbell-Savours, D N

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brandreth, Gyles

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Brazier, Julian

Alton, David

Bright, Sir Graham

Arbuthnot, James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Ashby, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Burns, Simon

Atkins, Robert

Butler, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Callaghan, Jim

Baldry, Tony

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Barnes, Harry

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Bates, Michael

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Beggs, Roy

Chapman, Sydney

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clappison, James

Bellingham, Henry

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Betts, Clive

Coe, Sebastian

Booth, Hartley

Connarty, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Conway, Derek

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bowis, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

295

Dixon, Don

Maddock, Diana

Donohoe, Brian H

Maitland, Lady Olga

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Malone, Gerald

Dover, Den

Mans, Keith

Dykes, Hugh

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Merchant, Piers

Evennett, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Faber, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Fabricant, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Norris, Steve

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Oppenheim, Phillip

French, Douglas

Page, Richard

Gallie, Phil

Paice, James

Gardiner, Sir George

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Garnier, Edward

Rendel, David

Gillan, Cheryl

Richards, Rod

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Riddick, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Rooney, Terry

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Hague, William

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Harvey, Nick

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Hayes, Jerry

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Heald, Oliver

Sackville, Tom

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hendry, Charles

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

Spink, Dr Robert

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Spring, Richard

Jack, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Jenkin, Bernard

Stephen, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Stewart, Allan

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Stewart, Allan

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Thurnham, Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tredinnick, David

Knapman, Roger

Trend, Michael

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Trimble, David

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Trotter, Neville

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

Wallace, James

Knox, Sir David

Ward, John

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Waterson, Nigel

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Whitney, Ray

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Whittingdale, John

Lewis, Terry

Widdecombe, Ann

Lidington, David

Willetts, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Wilshire, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Wolfson, Mark

Luff, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

McFall, John

MacKay, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Maclean, David

Mr. Bowen Wells and

McMaster, Gordon

Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Sedgemore: Well, there you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If anyone was in any doubt as to whether the Government had taken over this private Bill in a scurrilous fashion, we have just discovered the proof of that. I am sure that it will lead my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), when he replies to the debate, to decide not to support the Bill.
296
I was quoting from a letter from Professor David Tomlinson—
Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friend recalls, when "I spy Strangers" was called I was in the process of reminding my hon. Friend that I am one of the signatories to the blocking motion. As a result, I have been inundated with letters from people asking why. I have a good answer. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said today.
I have had a similar letter today from Arnold Wesker, whom I assume is the playwright, who lives at Hay-on-Wye. He says that he has been made an honorary fellow of Queen Mary and Westfield college. He says:
"I write about the … Bill which is to be debated on … Wednesday April 19th. I understand that you and other MPs seek to block the Bill. Permit me to ask why and to briefly argue in its favour."
He goes on to say that there is no connection between the college and the hospital.
That fellow has been made an honorary fellow. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend seems to know that there is a direct link, an umbilical cord, between the hospital and the college. This man—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be reasonably short. He has been speaking for more than a minute on this intervention, having started it previously. I should be grateful if he would wind up and, if he then wishes to catch my eye, he may do so.
Mr. Skinner: I intend to, but I need to tell my hon. Friend, because he has not had a letter from Arnold Wesker, whom I assume is the playwright.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have.
Mr. Skinner: Arnold Wesker says that he cannot understand why we should seek to block a merger that appears to offer high standards in medical education and research.
It seems odd to me that that bloke has been put on this body as an honorary fellow, yet he cannot see the direct connection between the college and the hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) should use this opportunity to provide an adequate answer to Mr. Arnold Wesker.
Mr. Sedgemore rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Before he does that, will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the same issue.
Mr. Sedgemore: Very well.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I too had one of those letters written in exactly the same terms as that written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I replied to the letter because it suggests that we do not have the right to debate the matter on Second Reading. Mr. Wesker does not seem to realise that the only way in which we could secure a debate at this stage was by laying down an objection. Had he realised that, he might have understood that this is a procedural mechanism by which

297
Members of Parliament hold the Executive accountable. It gives us our only opportunity to ask Ministers questions on the implementation of legislation of this nature. Unless we choose to debate these matters, clearly the public will not know what is happening in a particular case.
Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend has partly answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right, however. He saw me becoming angry and upset a moment ago about the claim that none of us knew the difference between a hospital and a medical college. I explained, in fairly strong terms, that it was not possible to close the world's greatest hospital, cutting off patient care, teaching and research—those three services being linked—without having a severely damaging effect on its medical college.
I do not want to attack Mr. Arnold Wesker. He is a playwright; I am an author. The old idea of medical institutions, and even the Labour party, having "luvvies" on their boards does not help the argument. With due respect, it is clear that Mr. Wesker has no idea what he is talking about. He may have had dinner with Professor Zellick and got hold of some rather tatty and tawdry argument—but I do not think that I should repeat what I said earlier. Although you were not present then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to try to deceive you about what has been happening.
In his letter to the Barts Journal, Professor David' Tomlinson gives direct quotations from what Professor Zellick has said. Apparently, he does not care whether the Bill is passed tonight—or at some other time—because he will proceed with the merger regardless. He does not care about Parliament. It has all gone on for too long; he is fed up with politicians, and does not respect the democratic processes.
The letter says:
"Whether we experience a brief delay of two or three months or even if the Bill is more seriously obstructed and we are unable to secure its passage in this session of Parliament, we shall nevertheless be able to bring about the unified School of Medicine and Dentistry as an integral part of QMW and we shall do that by the beginning of the 1995/96 session whatever the fate of the Bill."
It goes on to say that arrangements have been made between the Privy Council and the Higher Education Funding Council to use the royal prerogative to frustrate the will of Parliament if need be. That takes the biscuit.
The letter continues:
"it is now too late to pull back or delay. I am therefore pleased to report the unanimous view of the Merger Implementation Committee that nothing must be allowed to impede progress".
That apparently includes the will of Parliament.
Hon. Members must take into account the good faith of the Bill's promoters. We are entitled to ask what kind of medical college will be created by the merger, and who will lead it. If the person who is to lead it has been selected before the Bill has been given a Second Reading, and shows himself to be wholly hostile to parliamentary democracy, I should have thought that, by definition, he is not fit to run a major academic institution. Surely the House should not merely delay the Bill, but throw it out. It is appalling that a professor should arrogate the rights of Parliament, and say that our work does not matter.
I think that, when people have had a chance to study this astonishing outburst, Parliament will want to set up an inquiry into its proceedings on this and future Bills.
298
The Secretary of State for Health should make a statement from the Dispatch Box about this approach to private Bills concerning the national health service. It is not Professor Zellick's health service; it is Parliament's and the public's health service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney should, in all decency, be prepared to withdraw the motion.
Should the Bill receive a Second Reading, which I hope that it will not, I believe—Madam Deputy Speaker dealt with this point during earlier points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you took the Chair—that the Committee that eventually considers it will want to see Professor Zellick and the Privy Councillors involved, or members of the Privy Council staff, and members of the Higher Education Funding Council. It will want to find out how it is possible to override the will of Parliament through the exercise of the royal prerogative in regard to a Bill such as this.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I find great difficulty in understanding why the students changed their minds and why they withdrew their petition. Could it be that some sort of educational pressure was exerted on them? Is there any evidence to support that? Or could it be that the students were told that whatever happened in Parliament was irrelevant and that the college, by pursuing the use of the royal prerogative, could secure its objective anyway? Perhaps that is what convinced the students to change their minds. I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back to that point, but it is important.
Mr. Sedgemore: In truth, I cannot push the matter much further, although I can help my hon. Friend a little. The students would have seen the letter and the speech, because they were published in the Bart's medical college journal—and the leader of the student group at St. Bartholomew's, Marcus Beadle, writes a regular column for the journal. I assume that he reads the rest of it, so that may have subconsciously affected his decision.
As I have said, Professor Zellick told me at a meeting, which my hon. Friend attended, and also in a letter, that he has put no pressure on the students. Perhaps he has not done so, but senior clinicians at Bart's medical college have simply said to me, "Of course pressure was put on; you are a politician so you know the way these things work. The pressure is never direct, it is indirect." I am afraid that our trade is a little dirty—although not in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and the academic world can probably be as dirty, backstabbing, malicious and vicious as some politicians—not me—can be. I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.
Until now, I have been dealing with the preliminary arguments. My central argument is that Bart's medical college is a jewel of medical colleges and a centre of medical excellence unrivalled throughout the world. It can stand on its own. Whatever the sociological arguments produced by civil servants, by the Todd report in 1968, the Flowers report in 1980 and the Tomlinson report in 1992, the truth is that a pre-clinical confederation already exists between Bart's medical college and the Royal London medical college. That confederation works perfectly well. It has not brought together the administrative structures or the finances, but it allows for flexibility and for evolution in the development of medical education.

299
I want to refer to the Bart's site; the Royal London can speak for itself, as I am not an expert on that matter. There is an extraordinary centre of medical excellence on the Bart's site. There is also an extraordinary centre of patient care, but that is being abolished. However, we are not talking about that today. The preamble to the Bill suggests that one reason for the proposed merger between Queen Mary and Westfield college and the Royal London and Bart's medical colleges is that that would produce an institution that would be nationally and internationally renowned. That was a central feature of the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney when he introduced the Bill.
I intend to argue that we already have at the medical college of St. Bartholomew's a centre of national and international renown. I defy him in his reply to the debate to argue against that when he has heard my arguments. I intend to go into detail to prove that and challenge my right hon. Friend or anyone else who is in favour of the Bill to say that I am wrong.
Mr. Shore rose—
Mr. Sedgemore: I know that my right hon. Friend is going to say that he agrees, but that is not good enough. If we already have the centre, he must say that he can improve it. I do not believe that he can and that is my point. I will give him every opportunity to go into the detail, not the sociological soundbite.
Professor Zellick, one of the promoters, came to a Room in the House of Commons and said to me, "I want to produce a world-class institution." He said it as though, if we said, "Yes, go ahead," we would get a world-class institution. That is the way sociology works. The civil servants who thought about the proposal back in 1968 wanted to produce a world-class institution. They thought that, simply by repeating the words, it would happen. I say that we have a world-class institution and we could destroy it.
How do I prove that St. Bartholomew's hospital is a world-class institution that can stand on its own without the need for the merger?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a letter from the dean of the medical sciences building at the University of Toronto? It is a letter to the Prime Minister dated 7 January 1993. He says:
"St. Bartholomew's has a reputation for academic excellence in clinical care, medical education and research which is recognised around the world. My most direct knowledge of St. Bartholomew's concerns Gastroenterology in particular. St. Bartholomew's has been an acknowledged leader in Gastroenterology for more than 100 years. Currently, its clinicians, scholars and scientists in the Academic Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology are recognised world-wide. These facilities represent a resource to London, to Britain and to the international academic medical community."
That was from a Mr. C. A. Ottoway MD PhD FRCP, of the medical sciences building at the University of Toronto. I understand that he is the dean of the department. So my hon. Friend has an example. I have many examples in this book.
Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend is privileged to have letters which I do not have. I have heard of that particular
300
dean. He is of international renown. When he says that in gastroenterology St. Bartholomew's has a department of world excellence, I am inclined to believe him.
The point that my hon. Friend has to make, and I have to make in order to persuade the House, is as follows. My hon. Friend has dealt with one area. The fact that St. Bartholomew's is recognised internationally as excellent by someone whom we can respect does not mean that it is excellent across the board. How does one prove that an institution is world class? That is the onus on me in this debate. How can I prove to the House that here we have a world-class academic institution which is excellent across the board? Normally, one could not do it.
If we ask people at St. Bartholomew's hospital what they are like, they will tell us that they are brilliant. Of course they will. If we ask people at Corpus Christi college what they are like, they will tell us that they are brilliant. If we are to prove it, we must find external proof across the board.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend yet another quotation that is equally valid. It comes from an institution in Amsterdam—the Academisch medisch centrum. I do not speak Dutch so I cannot pronounce it right. It says:
"Worldwide and certainly in Europe the significance and the fundamental contributions of St. Bartholomew's Hospital are unanimously recognised. For many decades the hospital has been a leading institute in many areas of gastroenterology. The contributions towards medicine and medical care of many of its distinguished physicians and surgeons in the past and in the present have been of immense importance in many areas of gastroenterology. I would like particularly to refer to all the recent work with respect to diarrhoeal diseases and to various infectious diseases. But there are many other areas in gastroenterology where St. Bartholomew's has excelled."
There are letters from all over the world in this document and they spell out and emphasise the important contribution that that medical college makes in those areas.
Mr. Sedgemore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an important contribution. If he has many such letters, I hope that he will catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps he will be able to cover more of the spread than gastroenterology and immunology.
Mr. Skinner: That still does not prove it.
Mr. Sedgemore: By accident, I can prove that St. Bartholomew's is a global institution, a jewel in the crown and something that any civilisation would be silly to destroy. I shall not prove it in relation to the hospital, as we have had many debates on that, but I think that I can do so as regards the medical college. It is up to right hon. and hon. Members to decide whether they think that I have proved it.
The Tomlinson report contained two recommendations on St. Bartholomew's hospital. One was to close it and the other to merge its medical college with the Royal London medical college, which is what we are discussing. I think that the report referred to that being done in relation to the Queen Mary and Westfield. Those announcements sparked off a frisson throughout the medical world and the globe.
People did not sit back and say that it was something that was happening to some minor hospital somewhere in Britain—well, not somewhere in Britain but in the

301
constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and the heart of London, our capital city. They did not say, "It has nothing to do with us." They wrote about it. What is the quality of the people who wrote? What was the scale of the coverage and the depth of their feelings? I shall not quote whole letters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was only a part of the letter.
Mr. Sedgemore: Then it had even more power.
St. Bartholomew's has released to me 344 letters from 48 countries, which were sent to Professor Lesley Rees, the dean of the medical college. To be absolutely fair, some referred to the hospital, but most referred to the medical college and said its resources should not be split up or merged and that it should not disappear as it was one of the world's great institutions. If it works, why muck it around? That is the gravamen that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney must answer.
I have carried out a fairly unusual analysis of those documents across a wide range of the spectrum. After hon. Members have heard it, if they do not think that it adds up to a global institution that can stand on its own, they should speak and we can carry on the argument.
I spent several days undertaking this new type of summary of the way in which one analyses such things. First, I asked what countries the letters came from, did, they cover a wide spectrum of the globe and were they from important or unimportant people.
Mr. Skinner: What do you mean—important or unimportant?
Mr. Sedgemore: I mean, did they have academic excellence upon which the House could rely or were they people writing odd letters and saying—
Mr. Skinner: I do not like elitism.
Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend is quite right. Elitism is favouritism. We are talking about academic excellence and in that sense, when it comes to preserving institutions of academic excellence, in one definition of the word I am an old-fashioned conservative. I hope that that will give Conservative Members some comfort. I am trying to behave responsibly in this debate.
The spread of countries from which letters have been sent is extraordinary. It includes Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada—17 letters—Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the West Indies, the United States—97 letters—Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, Poland, Oman, Norway, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Malta, Malaysia, Malawi, Kuwait and Japan. Anyone can see that some countries are missing and that some 70 or 80 countries in the world are not represented, but basically that list represents the whole of the advanced medical world, which has sent letters. Is it not worth the House taking notice of them?
I have looked at the number of letters that came from distinguished universities, which I know from my experience and reading have academic experience in the medical world that is worth noting. The following
302
universities sent letters of support and said that this is a global institution and we would be foolish to let its human and property assets dissipate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has my hon. Friend seen correspondence supporting the merger from any of those countries?
Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend raises a good point and the short answer is no, I have seen not a single letter in support of the merger.
Mr. Shore: I have seen no letters against the merger.
Mr. Sedgemore: That is because my right hon. Friend has not been doing the talking and delving that I have been doing inside St Bartholomew's hospital in the past fortnight. One then gets a different story, but that is a point for later on.
The distinguished universities concerned are, in Australia: Monash university; the University of Adelaide; the University of New South Wales; the University of Queensland; the University of Tasmania; the University of Western Australia; and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, which is almost a university. They all said that this is a world-class institution and we should not break it up or let it go.
From Brazil, we received letters of support from the University of San Paulo. From Canada, we had letters of support from McGill university; McMaster university; the Tom Baker cancer centre, Calgary; University hospital, London, Ontario; the University of British Columbia; the University of Toronto; the University of Vancouver; and the University of Western Ontario—all the great universities of Canada. From Finland, we had letters of support from the University of Helsinki and the University of Turku.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of that overwhelming body of opinion worldwide that has written to the Prime Minister, the hospital or whoever in support of retaining the existing college structure, is it not odd that the Minister is unwilling to come to the Dispatch Box to answer a simple question: if it is the will of Parliament that this Bill does not proceed, is it right for the college authorities to proceed on the basis that they can use the royal prerogative? Is it not odd that, given the overwhelming weight of support, Ministers stand aside and not reflect publicly on those matters?
Mr. Skinner: They are arrogant.
Mr. Sedgemore: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, they are arrogant. The arrogance of 17 years of one-party rule is destroying our national health service, but I shall concentrate on the Bill before us.
Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems entirely inconsistent with Government policy when, at the same time as they are trying to promote the City of London as a financial centre in the world, we have reactions from all over the world to the dismantling of a great medical institution? Can we imagine our competitors in Frankfurt or Paris doing something similar while trying to attract wealth and jobs to their city?
Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend makes a point that the City of London realises only too well is perfectly valid. One cannot imagine any other country breaking up a medical institution of this character. The chairman of

303
the policy and resources committee of the City of London corporation, who is obviously a Conservative—Mr. Michael Cassidy—wrote only a week ago about the disaster that is befalling the City of London.
We have had representations from the Aristotolean university at Thessaloniki and Athens university in Greece, the university of Budapest in Hungary, the University of Esfahan in Iran, University college, Cork, Ireland, the Chaim Sheba medical centre at Tel Aviv university in Israel, the University of La Sapienza, Rome, and the universities of Bologna, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Modena, Naples Padova, Pavia, Siena, Trieste and Turin in Italy, Kyoto university in Japan, Kuwait university, the University of Malta medical school, the Academische Ziekenhuis in Groningen, Academische Ziekenhuis in Utrecht, the Catholic university in Nijmegen, Erasmus university in Rotterdam, and the University of Amsterdam. That is virtually the whole of the Netherlands, which has a reputation in medical science.
We have had representations from the universities of Auckland and of Otago in New Zealand, the University of Oslo in Norway, the universities of Lisbon and of Porto in Portugal, the Moscow state university, and the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow university.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who wants to change the present position?
Mr. Sedgemore: Apparently, nobody in the whole world wants to, apart from whipped Conservative Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
We have had representations from the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, the universities of Natal and of Stellenbosch in South Africa, the universities of Barcelona, of Madrid and of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, the universities of Gothenburg, of Lund, of Umea and of Uppsala in Sweden, the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Hôpital Cantonal Universitaire de Geneve and University hospital, Zurich.
We have had representations from the Albert Einstein college of medicine, New York, the American Cancer Society, Columbia university, Cornell university, Georgetown university, Harvard university, Indiana university, Iowa state university, the Johns Hopkins medical school—one of the greatest medical schools that the world has ever known and ever will known—Loyola university in Chicago, the universities of Stanford in California, Alabama—
Mr.Campbell-Savours: What are they all saying?
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall come to that.
We have received representations from the universities in Arizona, California, Detroit, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Miami, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Florida, Southern California, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia Washington, North Carolina and St. Louis. [Laughter.]
Hon. Members are laughing, but those are 114 of the world's most prestigious universities with medical schools. One or two of them may have written letters that are over the top. They may have done it out of kindness, but one cannot get 114 of the world's top medical colleges to say, "Keep this medical college as it is, linked to its
304
hospital, and let this global jewel get on with its business." I do not know how my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will answer that. That is the geographical spread.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned gastroenterology. I said that it was all right to mention that but that plenty of other medical sciences existed. How does the spread go in those letters? It goes throughout the medical sciences.
Bart's is being described as a megacentre of academic research and of doctors' teaching and training in the following areas: anatomy, basic science, cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, clinical biochemistry, clinical pharmacology, dermatology, diabetes, endocrinology, gynaecology, gastroenterology, haematology, human nutrition, AIDS, medical education, medical informatics, medical oncology, metabolism, microbiology, molecular genetics, nephrology, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics, orthopaedic surgery, pathology, paediatrics, paediatric endocrinology, paediatric gastroendocrinology, paediatric oncology, pharmacology, physiology, preventive medicine, psychiatry, radiology, reproductive physiology, surgery, transplant surgery and urology.
That is just about every medical discipline that we know about. Representatives of all those disciplines say that Bart's is magnificent; it is wonderful; it works; keep it; leave it alone. Why have we come here to destroy it?
I shall not read long letters, but I should like to read a few small excerpts. Hon. Members may judge the quality of the people who have written them in relation to the hospital.
Professor Bela Halasz from Hungary wrote:
"I was shocked … I was startled … Its scientists are leading members of important international organizations …In my opinion it would be a very great loss, if they"
were dispersed. He knows what he is talking about. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney knows him.
On basic science, Professor Guido Pozza from Italy wrote:
"It is my strong opinion that such a decision will bring about a great loss for biomedical research in U.K … I do really hope that St. Bart's shall not end its activity."
On cardiology, Professor Sean Blake of Dublin wrote:
"It seems to me that this would be a tremendous tragedy."
Dr. Richard Hauer from the Netherlands wrote:
"It was with astonishment … deepest support to attempts to avert this highly undesirable development."
Professor Wellens of the Netherlands wrote:
"many new developments in the diagnosis and management of cardiac arrhythmias have come from colleagues working in St. Bartholomew's Hospital … St. Bartholomew's Hospital is academically very much alive."
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Sedgemore: May I just develop this point? I am looking at the clock and I want to give other Members a chance to speak.
On cardiac surgery:
"I am astonished … a beacon, a lighthouse and a guide to, not only the Londoner, but also, to the people of the United Kingdom and the world at large … the fate of such a perennial institution, cannot be determined by an ephemeral … body"—
I assume that that is a reference to Parliament—

305
"this national treasure"
wrote Professor Gerard Guiraudon of Canada.
On clinical biochemistry, Professor Jarob of Germany said:
"This tells a lot about successful and excellent education going on not only in Dr Galton's department but also in the whole institution. So I am sure the closure of this tradition-rich famous institute would be an irreparable error … I feel strongly about my conviction".
On clinical neurophysiology, Anna Maria Seppalainen of Finland wrote:
"St. Bartholomew's has often exercised interdisciplinary approach … This type of approach is severely endangered if the facilities and specialists should be dispersed in various locations."
On clinical pharmacology:
"several highly respected physicians and surgeons from Bart's have, over the years, contributed to continuing education at the Academy as Distinguished Academicians … There is thus a longstanding academic and professional link between Bart's and the medical community of Singapore … it would be a disastrous mistake to close the Hospital."
That is Professor Vernon M. Oh from the national university of Singapore.
On endocrinology, Professor Luiz Cesar Povoa of Brazil wrote:
"As a member of the executive Committee of the International Society of Endocrinology I can testify to the high concept of this institution and its contribution to the Endocrinology not only in England, but in the whole World. So, it seems, I repeat,' incredible … England is respected in the world by its capacity in maintaining tradition, developing new sophisticated techniques and training in a high level"
of
"Human Resources. Undoubtedly, St. Bartholomew's Hospital is a symbol of this statement."
On gynaecology, Professor Masterson at the university of Florida in the United States of America, who is one of the great experts in his field, wrote:
"surprise and dismay … one of only six training centres approved by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for clinical and fellowship training in Gynaecological Oncology."
Dr. Holmesley of North Carolina in the United States of America is another respected expert. He said that the
"most critical loss would be an active training programme in Gynaecological Oncology".
That is roughly the same statement that I have just read out from the other source.
In the sphere of haematology, Professor Sherrill Slichter from Washington, America, said to Professor Lesley Rees, Dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college:
"Your department and institution are well recognised as examples of the best in medical education and scientific excellence … I would consider it both a personal and professional loss to the haematologic community if your department was no longer in existence."
On the subject of immunology and AIDS, the Ruprecht-Karls university in Heidelberg, Germany states that there are
"alarming reports … the work of St. Bartholomew's is highly respected in the international transplant community … ranks among the best institutions worldwide."
Professor Jonathan Mann from the Harvard school of public health, another major university, said:
"Beyond the clinical and academic excellence associated with St. Bartholomew's, I have had the opportunity to observe the high level of international collaboration which the facility and its senior staff, such as Professor Anthony Pinching, have manifested. Professor
306
Pinching has been a major figure in AIDS research and in global thinking about HIV/AIDS … a major concern would emerge should St. Bartholomew's cease to exist."
Anthony Pinching came from St Mary's—he is one of the people whose work with the Government stopped the onslaught and spread of AIDS in this country. If his department were to be ripped up, we would all pay a terrible price, but, apparently, that may be on the cards.
In the sphere of medicine, Professor Casanueva of Spain said:
"for Endocrinology, your hospital is the most important and leading unit in Europe … prevent this absurd measure."
Mr. Michael Thorner said:
"the current policy appears to be precipitous and poorly thought out … Bart's not only serves its patient base, but it is an important centre for teaching of medical students, as a postdoctoral training institution and as a centre for medical research."
The evidence goes on and on. I think that I am beginning to prove my point.
I also looked at one of the major medical institutions of the world—the equivalent of a medical college in Britain. I looked at what 10 people from that one major institution had said to see whether, across the board, I could get a favourable result. I looked for the reaction of the Harvard medical school, one of the greatest medical centres that the world has ever known. Ten professors were asked what they thought.
Professor Goyal from the department of medicine of Harvard medical school said that he felt "great astonishment" and that
"the adverse effects of its closing will be felt in the medical community throughout the world."
Professor Walker of the department of paediatrics said that he was "absolutely overwhelmed" and that it was
"outrageous … that the government should wish to close such a wonderful example of what British medicine has contributed to the world of medicine, medical research and to the quality of care of patients."
Professor Mannick of the department of surgery at the Harvard medical school said:
"I find this shocking in the extreme … St. Bartholomew's is a source of inspiration for academic physicians and surgeons throughout the world."
All the other professors say exactly the same.
Professor Nichols of the department of gynaecology and reproductive oncology said that he felt "astonishment and sadness". He said:
"This centre of international communication in medicine has earned the respect of colleagues throughout the world … It is so easy to dismantle that which took professionals generations to develop, but the negative consequences for the women of the world will be those with which we must all live for a very long time."
We can look at the letters in another way. I do not think that anyone has ever done this kind of analysis in support of an institution in this country. Ostensibly, we have a lot of letters which make academic medical points. However, we wish to highlight the strength of the emotions involved. How strong is the emotional tie with St. Bartholomew's? There is a negative emotional response to the idea of closing the hospital and merging the medical college and I have picked out some of the words which show the depth of that feeling.
I have analysed the letters and the principal words used again and again include: "shocked", "dismayed", "astonished", "disbelief", "deepest concern", "saddened", "surprise", "amazement", "appalled", "distressed",

307
"horrified", "stunned", "devastating", "overwhelmed", "disturbing", "inconceivable", "incredible", "unthinkable", "astounded", "apprehension", "speechless", "horrible", "alarmed" and "You must be kidding".
The other side of the coin is how Bart's Smithfield is viewed around the globe. Some of the words used in the letters are: "unequalled", "pre-eminent", "world renowned", "venerable", "irreplaceable institution", "true legend", "wonderful unparalled example", "landmark without peers", "international role model", "pillar", "a beacon", "jewel", "a lighthouse", "shining light", "admiration", "envy", "a guide", "prestigious", "scientific strength", "innovative", "dynamic", "unique", "resource benefit of mankind", "incredible traditions", "highest distinction and renown", "top-flight", "great citadel", "magnificent", "dedication to excellence", "second to none", "superb reputation" and "national treasure". That is how people from abroad view the institution.
If the great medics of this country were to meet the top 25 endocrinologists, cardiologists, physiologists or experts in any field—this exercise is not connected with the letters—would anyone from Bart's be in the room? Would anyone from Bart's stand as an example of that institution's international quality?
If one entered a room containing the world's top 25 endocrinologists, one would find Professor Michael. Besser, professor of medicine at Bart's. Every endocrinologist in the world would recognise him. I do not wish to embarrass him, but Professor Besser is as close as one will ever get to a genius. He is not only a professor of medicine but also a chief executive following the publication of the Tomlinson report. He fought an heroic battle to save St. Bartholomew's hospital.
He would be recognised as the professor of medicine and the chairman of the department of medicine at Bart's. His department of endocrinology received a commendation in the 1992 research assessment exercise. He is a world leader in endocrinology and he has been a visiting professor to universities and medical establishments in Canada, China, Hong Kong, Italy, Malta and the United States of America. He was recently elected senior vice president and senior censor of the Royal College of Physicians.
He is currently chairman of the working party on hormone replacement therapy. He has served on the editorial board of the Journal of Endocrinology and the Journal of Neuroendocrinology and he is currently a member of the editorial board of clinics in endocrinology and metabolism. He could stand among the world's top 25 endocrinologists and people would look up to him. He also performs another function which is not quite as important—he is in charge of the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington when my hon. Friend is a patient at St. Bartholomew's hospital. That is the kind of genius and department that I am asking the House to fight to preserve, and not to let slide away into oblivion with the closure of the hospital. Once the department has gone, we will not get it back.
Professor James Malpas would be recognised in that room. He is currently the senior physician at St. Bartholomew's hospital, and he is a world authority on childhood cancer. He is president of the Association of Cancer Physicians. The department that he heads has an international reputation, from both the clinical and
308
academic points of view. It received a commendation in the 1992 research assessment exercise. The professorial heads of several oncology departments in this country and the heads of at least three departments in north America—
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 22.

Division No. 131]

[9.55 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Alexander, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Alton, David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Amess, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Arbuthnot, James

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hague, William

Ashby, David

Harris, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Hayes, Jerry

Atkins, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Hendry, Charles

Baldry, Tony

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Bates, Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bendall, Vivian

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

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Booth, Hartley

Jack, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bowis, John

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Brandreth, Gyles

King, Rt Hon Tom

Brazier, Julian

kirkhope, Timothy

Bright, Sir Graham

Kirkwood, Archy

Browning, Mrs Angela

Knapman, Roger

Burns, Simon

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Butler, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Knox, Sir David

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Chapman, Sydney

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Clappison, James

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lidington, David

Coe, Sebastian

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Connarty, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Conway, Derek

Luff, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dalyell, Tam

MacKay, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maclean, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Maddock, Diana

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maitland, Lady Olga

Dover, Den

Malone, Gerald

Dykes, Hugh

Mans, Keith

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Evennett, David

Merchant, Piers

Faber, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fabricant, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Nelson, Anthony

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

French, Douglas

Norris, Steve

Gale, Roger

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gallie, Phil

Ottaway, Richard

Gardiner, Sir George

Page, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Paice, James

Gillan, Cheryl

Redwood, Rt Hon John

309

Rendel, David

Tredinnick, David

Richards, Rod

Trend, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wallace, James

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Waller, Gary

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Ward, John

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Sackville, Tom

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Ray

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Willetts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Wilshire, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Spring, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Sproat, Iain

Wolfson, Mark

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wood, Timothy

Stephen, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Stewart, Allan

Streeter, Gary

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Thurnham, Peter

Mr. Raymond Robertson.

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Barnes, Harry

Hardy, Peter

Beggs, Roy

Illsley, Eric

Callaghan, Jim

McFall, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Pike, Peter L

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Redmond, Martin

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Cohen, Harry

Wise, Audrey

Cox, Tom

Wray, Jimmy

Davidson, Ian

Dixon, Don

Tellers for the Noes:

Donohoe, Brian H

Mr. Terry Lewis and

Etherington, Bill

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 19.

Division No. 132]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Burns, Simon

Alexander, Richard

Butler, Peter

Alton, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Amess, David

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Arbuthnot, James

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Clappison, James

Atkins, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Coe, Sebastian

Bates, Michael

Conway, Derek

Beggs, Roy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dalyell, Tam

Bellingham, Henry

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bendall, Vivian

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Beresford, Sir Paul

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Booth, Hartley

Dover, Den

Boswell, Tim

Dykes, Hugh

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bowis, John

Evennett, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Faber, David

Brazier, Julian

Fabricant, Michael

Bright, Sir Graham

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

310

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

French, Douglas

Norris, Steve

Gale, Roger

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gallie, Phil

Ottaway, Richard

Gardiner, Sir George

Page, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Paice, James

Gillan, Cheryl

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Rendel, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Richards, Rod

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Riddick, Graham

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Hague, William

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Hardy, Peter

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Harris, David

Sackville, Tom

Hayes, Jerry

Shaw, David (Dover)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hendry, Charles

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

Soames, Nicholas

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Spink, Dr Robert

Jack, Michael

Spring, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Sproat, Iain

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Stephen, Michael

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Stewart, Allan

King, Rt Hon Tom

Streeter, Gary

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thurnham, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Tredinnick, David

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Trend, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Knox, Sir David

Wallace, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Waller, Gary

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Ward, John

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Waterson, Nigel

Lidington, David

Wells, Bowen

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Whittingdale, John

Luff, Peter

Widdecombe, Ann

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

MacKay, Andrew

Willetts, David

Maclean, David

Wilshire, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Malone, Gerald

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Mans, Keith

Wolfson, Mark

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Wood, Timothy

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Merchant, Piers

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Monro, Sir Hector

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Nelson, Anthony

Mr. Raymond Robertson.

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Etherington, Bill

Barnes, Harry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Callaghan, Jim

Lewis, Terry

Campbell-Savours, D N

Pike, Peter L

Redmond, Martin

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Skinner, Dennis

Cohen, Harry

Wise, Audrey

Connarty, Michael

Wray, Jimmy

Cox, Tom

Davidson, Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Donohoe, Brian H

Mr. Brian Sedgemore and

Eastham, Ken

Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at to-morrow's sitting, the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the First Report from the Committee of Privileges not later than two hours after their commencement; and

(2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Withdrawal of Members from Meetings of Select Committees not later than one and a half hours after their commencement;

the Questions aforesaid shall include the Questions on any amendments of the Motions which she may have selected, which may then be moved, and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

Campaign Stars and Medals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
10.21 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is present. I am sure that, like most if not all hon. Members—including me—he has for some time been receiving invitations to attend events in May, and the rest of the summer, to commemorate the end of the second world war both in Europe and over Japan. Last year, many of us attended commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings.
When victory finally came 50 years ago this year, all involved knew that they had been part of—to use General Eisenhower's words—a "great and noble undertaking". Countless thousands of men and women were rewarded for their part in that noble undertaking with campaign stars and medals that were richly deserved; but in the immediate aftermath of the war, many looked not back at what had been but ahead to what might be.
They naturally wanted to turn their backs on six years of war, and return as swiftly as possible to civvy street, to try to pick up the pieces of their former lives, and perhaps shut out the terrible experiences that many had been through. No blame should attach to those who did not apply for medals at that time: I believe that they were, and are, just as entitled as those who claimed them.
Many sailors, soldiers and airmen did not claim the medals they had won for their part in the campaign that led to victory in the years immediately after the war. As the years rolled on, however, they began to put matters into perspective; the achievements of the war years came home to them, and pride in what they had done gradually began to surge in their veins again. Younger family members began to take an interest in what their fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts had done to help bring about victory. More years passed, and grandchildren began to ask the same questions.
One such is my constituent Mr. Tony King. He first came to me with his claim for a war pension. He served in the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards from 1942 to 1946, as a tank driver and latterly as a crew commander. Regimental history tells us of an action on the evening of 2 September 1944, when there was strong enemy resistance around St Pol. The regiment was ordered to carry out a night march around the right flank, and to cut the roads leading east from the town.
During the morning of the following day, regimental headquarters was shelled—and that is when the incident to which I shall refer occurred. A high-explosive shell exploded near to my constituent, killing an officer standing beside him and wounding 14 others, including Mr. King. After prolonged hospital treatment, he returned to his regiment on the River Maas and, finally, was discharged in December 1945.
In part, the problem with his war pension resulted because of asbestos contamination in the storerooms in which the records were kept. Incidentally, a seven-days-a-week operation was carried out at the time to clear up the storerooms, so Mr. King's records were and are readily available. His claim for a war pension was finally accepted in April 1994, in good time for the 50th

313
anniversary of the actual incident I have described. It was granted on the basis of hearing loss, anxiety and depression, and shrapnel wounds to his head, upper back and left leg.
Only last year, Mr. King took an emotional trip back to northern France to retrace his wartime exploits. His four grandsons had already begun to take a keen interest in his war record, so, like many others, Mr. King made a belated request for his medals so that he could wear them with pride during this year's commemorations.
He was able to furnish the Ministry of Defence with copies of forms relating to his release from active service, together with his pension reference number, so it was reasonable for him to assume that his right to the medals would be established quite simply and the medals duly issued. Failing that, Mr. King simply wanted confirmation of his right to the medals, so that he could wear miniature replicas at the ceremonies—not, most people would believe, a difficult request. That happened in January.
Mr. King's letter to the MOD was swiftly acknowledged, but it was a great disappointment. He was told that, along with hundreds of other veterans applying for medals, he would have to wait 12 months before they could be processed. The letter said:
"In recent years there has been a considerable upsurge in belated claims … to as many as 1,800 a month … Every effort is being made by the small team involved in the issuing of Second World War medals to speed up the processing of claims."
I took up the matter with Ministers at the MOD in early' February, and received a reply from Lord Henley. He said that many people had chosen not to apply 50 years ago, and that the increase in applications had inevitably added to the backlog in processing such claims. He also referred to the asbestos contamination problem, which I have already mentioned.
He said that, currently, the delay in issuing Army medals is about 12 months, although, if the claimant was seriously ill, priority would be given. He said that some additional staff had been recruited. The letter continued:
"The increase in applications for campaign stars and medals places a heavy burden, not only on the staff working on these claims at the Army Medal Office, but also on those who are responsible for locating individual personnel Service records".
Finally, my hon. Friend the Minister answered a parliamentary question on the same subject on 15 March.
Of course it is absolutely right that checks should be made. We cannot have people walking around at these ceremonies wearing medals to which they are not entitled. However, I have two major criticisms of the approach adopted by the MOD in its correspondence with both my constituent and myself. First, it seems to have been taken by surprise by the rise in demand for old campaign medals as we approached the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. But even if that is reasonable, there was a similar blip last year, coming up to the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings.
My second major criticism is that I do not accept that more could not have been done to deal with the problem. It seems to me that there was a total failure to see that this year's commemoration ceremonies would be the first and, in some cases, sadly the last opportunity for some of the world war two veterans to take part and wear their medals with pride.
What is the point of priority treatment for the seriously ill, who of course are every bit as deserving of the medals as anyone else, when it is the fit and well who wish to
314
parade in this special year? It is true that some additional staff have been recruited, but clearly it was not enough. I was told that new staff would have to be trained to process medal claims and that that would take time, but how complex can the training be?
It is not easy for veterans who claim their medals, such as my constituent, Mr. King, to understand why it takes so long to process these legitimate claims. Most of them can produce detailed evidence to show that their claims are genuine. After all, the records proved only a little while earlier that Mr. King was entitled to his war pension. I understand that the medals were cast in sufficient numbers to satisfy the demand. It should not be beyond the wit of man, let alone the MOD, to devise a temporary system to satisfy the claims of the brave men and women for whom this year is such an important milestone.
We are fortunate in Britain to have a large, dedicated number of men and women working in the civil service, but, with respect, this problem shows the British civil service at its worst.
It has been suggested that some of the veterans could borrow medals from other people. Despite the kindness of such an offer, perhaps from a widow, it is not the same as having one's own medals. Exactly the same argument applies to the suggestion that I have heard, that second-hand medals can be bought across the counter. The stars and medals have little intrinsic value, but they are the outward and visible sign of the courage of those who wear them and the gratitude of those of us who come after.
In conclusion, could I tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister what I am realistically asking for in the debate tonight. I have been pressing the issue for some time in correspondence and in a parliamentary question. I began to apply some time ago for an Adjournment debate. I have already said that Mr. King first wrote to the MOD back in January.
It is obvious as we debate the issue this evening that there are not many working days left until VE day. I look for an assurance this evening from the Minister that far greater energy and priority will be put into the project. It is clear that we should try to do as much as we can by VE day, but let us at least set ourselves the target of clearing the rest of the backlog by VJ day in August. It is time to end this medal muddle. The problem will not be. repeated.
Many of us go to remembrance day parades and so on every year. We often sing on such occasions the famous hymn with the words:
"Time, like an ever-rolling stream, Bears all its sons away".
I sometimes wonder whether there is an attitude in some parts of the civil service that this is a problem that will go away, because many of the veterans are becoming elderly and infirm.
In some cases, it will, sadly, be our very last chance to show our gratitude to these men and women. I do not mind if a few civil servants lose some sleep, or even earn some overtime, in the process. It is little enough compared to the many hardships endured by veterans such as my constituent Mr. King. Lastly, I ask that, on this issue, the MOD show some of the "can do" spirit that Mr. King and so many other young men and women showed 50 years ago.
10.34 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) securing this very important debate, which focuses attention on our second world war veterans, on the extremely powerful and persuasive way in which he put his case, and on the way in which he has represented the case of his constituent Mr. King in respect of this claim for some considerable time.
As you will know, with your constituency interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, this year is especially important as we remember the almost unbelievable efforts and huge sacrifices made by those who fought and died to maintain the freedom of this country and our independence 50 years ago this year. As the House knows only too well, the Government and the nation fully recognise the immeasurable debt that is owed to all ex-service men and women who took part in the conflict.
I hope that they will feel that that debt will be well demonstrated by the breadth and scope of the events that are being planned throughout the country to commemorate in a fitting and dignified manner victory in Europe next month, and victory over Japan in August.
The plea that my hon. Friend has made so powerfully this evening, and all that he has done on behalf of his constituent Mr. King, will readily find much sympathy within the House and wherever this debate is reported, but I regret that the solution that my hon. Friend seeks is not' as simple as he or I might wish, as I know he will realise.
Since the battle of Waterloo in 1815, campaign service in the armed forces has been recognised by the institution and award of medals and ribbons, which have been issued to all eligible service men and women without charge.
Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, a number of medals were proposed for service in world war two, and were approved by the sovereign for issue to those who took part. The first medals were available for issue in 1948, and all those still serving in the armed forces were issued with their medals automatically.
By 1948, however, many of those who had served in the war had been demobilised. Many had changed their place of residence after leaving the armed forces, or had emigrated, and consequently were impossible to locate, despite, in many cases, the most strenuous efforts. As a result, it was not possible to issue all awards automatically to those entitled to receive them.
Responsibility for the issue of second world war medals was transferred in 1950 to the single service Ministries. That included the Army Medal Office, to whom the lion's share of the task of issuing war medals fell, and with which my hon. Friend has been having correspondence and dealings, via my noble Friend the Lord Henley.
Unlike the first world war, when medals were automatically issued to enlisted service men, following world war two, all ranks had to apply. To ensure that as many individuals as possible were aware of that, a very extensive advertising campaign was undertaken by the Government of the day.
For many reasons, there was a steady trickle of claims. However, for a larger variety of reasons, many people chose not to apply for their medals. In more recent years, many ex-service men and women have been inspired to claim their medals as a result of the large number of second world war anniversaries and commemorative
316
events, which will come to a climax this year, the anniversary of VE and VJ days. That is precisely the position in which Mr. King, my hon. Friend's constituent, now finds himself.
My hon. Friend has asked why we cannot do more to speed up the issue of the medals, and I should explain a little of the background and the steps that we are taking to do what we can to speed it up, as my hon. Friend rightly wants.
First, the charter of the Army Medal Office—and, indeed, the Navy and Royal Air Force Medal Offices—is to undertake the award and issue of all medals, that the first priority is rightly the issuing of medals to those who are still serving, as their medals are an essential part of their uniform and are recognition of their current service. Despite that, considerable efforts are made to deal with both categories equally.
It is not always appreciated that the assessment of medal entitlement for past service, which may have been some years ago, is a skilled and precise task, and cannot be done as speedily as we and my hon. Friend would naturally wish. To ensure that claimants receive their full, just and honourable entitlement and, equally important, to ensure that medals are issued only to those who meet the strictest criteria, an individual's personal file must first be recovered from very extensive historical archives.
That information is then compared with both the orders of battle, detailing the various ships, squadrons and units involved in particular regiments, operations and campaigns, and the regulations and qualifying conditions for the various campaign stars and medals, to determine that a medal claimant receives those stars and medals to which he is entitled. Considering the age of many service records, it is something of a feat in itself for the staff of the medal offices to retrieve all the appropriate information.
My hon. Friend will realise that all files dating back to the second world war are manual records, and although there might be some superficial attraction—clearly, in the case of this debate and this year, there would be a superficial attraction—in transferring them to a modern, computerised database, there are some 25.5 million records, only a small proportion of which are ever considered generally for pension or medal purposes, as Mr. King's have already been looked at for pension purposes, thanks to my hon. Friend's intervention. Moreover, such an exercise would be prohibitively expensive.
None the less, substantial computer support has been purchased for the medal offices and is being introduced to deal with routine correspondence, but the majority of that work, and the most complicated and time-consuming part, must still be carried out manually on a case-by-case basis after the most thorough and detailed research.
To give the House some idea of the scale of the work, on just the applications for medals from Army veterans of world war two, the Army Medal Office processed more than 24,000 cases last year. That is all the more remarkable, as staff could not access the Army records centre files from May 1993 until February 1994, due to the fact that archives had to be closed for health and safety reasons, so that asbestos dust contamination could properly be removed by specialist contractors for the safety of those working there.

317
Although the inevitable backlog of applications that resulted from that closure was cleared very quickly by the exceptionally hard work and expertise of both staff at the archives and the Army Medal Office, to whom I pay a warm tribute tonight, first-time applications, of course, continued to arrive.
Not surprisingly, the general interest shown by the media in last year's wonderful commemorative events to mark the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings resulted in a fantastic increase in applications for campaign stars and medals. I want my hon. Friend to be wholly reassured that the most proper and regular contingency plans were prepared in anticipation of such a surge in interest. The need to clear the backlog caused by the closure of the Army's archive has, however, inevitably added to the delay in processing such claims.
Unfortunately, even by working what my hon. Friend rightly said they should work—substantial overtime—the Army medal office cannot keep up with the number of claims that it has received, which are running at around 2,000 per month.
My hon. Friend suggested that extra staff should have been established to deal with that. While appearing attractive, the reality would be that, to divert experienced people away from their detailed, primary and urgent task to train new staff would have been self-defeating, and would also be at a time when my, Department rightly aims to reduce expenditure on support organisations. In general, that policy commands my hon. Friend's support.
I wish my hon. Friend and his constituent Mr. King to be reassured that medal applications are being processed as quickly as humanly possible. We should not lose sight of the fact that Army Medal Office staff, for example, have managed to process nearly 8,500 applications in the first three months of the year—many of which involve two or more medals—which is well above what they would normally, under any reasonable circumstances, be expected to achieve.
With first-time applications still arriving on a daily basis, barely weeks before the planned commemoration events, I am afraid that it is entirely inevitable that some veterans will be disappointed. By working at the rate that they are, however, medal offices are continually eroding the backlog, and all staff at the three service medal offices are working regular and substantial overtime in an effort to ensure that as many veterans of world war two receive those medals before the VE and VJ day celebrations, when they will clearly wish to wear their decorations with pride.
Despite all those efforts, we of course accept that all claimants for world war two medals, who are of advanced years and mainly retired from full-time employment, feel that their time is running out, as my hon. Friend, in a most moving conclusion to his speech, rightly said. The vast majority accept, however, that, as they and a great many of their former colleagues have waited 47 years to apply for their medals, there will be an inevitable delay before they receive the medals that are due to them. Many veterans have written letters of the warmest gratitude, often expressing profound surprise that medals for service performed so many years ago are still available.
318
My hon. Friend rightly and understandably suggested that we should perhaps give priority to veterans who will be able to attend this summer's commemoration. We consider it of primary importance. We are at pains at all times to maintain that all claims are dealt with equitably and fairly. We think that it is only right that they are dealt with in turn and order of claim, the only exception being where a claimant can show proof that he or she is facing a life-threatening illness or condition. Such cases, however, are rare.
With the degree of interest in the forthcoming events to mark the 50th anniversary of the second world war, and the focus on the events and achievements of half a century ago, it is not surprising that many thousands of veterans of that conflict have decided to apply for their medals, prompted by memories and stirred by images of those sacrifices and of the service that they gave many years ago.
Although millions of people have applied for and received their awards since their institution in 1948, many individuals, for understandable reasons of their own, have chosen not to claim them until now. The tremendous influx of applications, numbering, as I said, more than 2,000 a month, has created a temporary backlog of cases that no amount of manpower or equipment could possibly resolve. Although the staff of the medal offices are working flat out to ensure that as many veterans and their families as possible receive their medals, I am afraid that, as I said earlier, some disappointment will be quite inevitable.
On the detail of the case which was raised so formidably by my hon. Friend, I understand that Mr. King joined the Royal Armoured Corps in March 1942, following three years in the civil defence service in Bristol as a cycle messenger. He served with the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards—the Skins—and no finer regiment exists in north-west Europe. He was discharged after being wounded on 28 December 1945. He and I have one thing in common: we were both trained as boy soldiers at Bovington.
Although Mr. King could have applied for his medals at any time in the past 50 years, it is perhaps unfortunate, although perfectly understandable, that he did not apply until 26 January this year. I am pleased that, even under the exceptional pressure, he nevertheless received a reply within four days from the Ministry of Defence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
I am afraid that that is, regrettably, a typical case and, although Mr. King will receive those medals to which he is properly and honourably entitled after his gallant war service, it will simply not be possible for us to process his application any faster than the many other applications that are being dealt with currently.
Before closing, I remind my hon. Friend, if he needs reminding, that the giving and receiving of medals has always been an emotive subject. Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister, summed it up at this Dispatch Box in a speech on 22 March 1944, when he said to the House:
"The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them … a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it it is of less value … A medal glitters, but it also casts a

319
shadow … All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest"—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
That remains our aim today.
Whether with medals or without, we hope that the events of this summer will provide a vivid reminder of the huge debt that we owe to that generation, who sacrificed so much so that subsequent generations should so casually and so lightly enjoy freedom.
320
That debt can never be fully repaid, but we shall always strive to do our best, and that includes continuing to do all we reasonably can to ensure that as many of those veterans as possible can proudly display their medals this summer. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the formidable, powerful and sensible way in which he presented a most persuasive and eloquent case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Residential Care
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total income to each local authority in England and Wales and in total from placements of old people in(a) registered and (b) unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes inside and outside the local authority area and from placements in local authority homes for older people; and if she will break this down by income from (i) government grants (1) inside aggregate external finance and (2) outside AEF, (ii) sales, (iii) fees and charges, (iv) other income and (v) joint arrangements; [18925]

  (2) what is the total expenditure by each local authority in England and Wales on placements of older people in (a) registered and (b) unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes inside and outside the local authority; if she will break this down into expenditure on (i) employees (ii) running expenses and (iii) joint arrangements; and if she will provide similar information on expenditure by local authorities on local authority homes for older people. [18921]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information for England in 1992–93, the latest year for which complete information is available, will be placed in the Library. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Drug Users
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce photo-identity passes for registered drug users to ensure that they cannot attend more than one drug-prescribing centre to obtain drug supplies; if she will consider introducing legislation so that all registered drugs users are required to register exclusively with the health authority in whose area they reside and that this health authority maintain a photo-identity record of the registered user; if she will consider supplementing this legislation with a requirement that anyone seeking to register as a drug user must do so through his or her local health authority and must specify a single prescribing centre to attend; if she will legislate to ensure that anyone seeking to register as a drug user must be referred back to his or her local health authority; if she will ensure that cross-referencing within and between health authorities is encouraged and funded; and if she will make a statement. [19009]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have no such plans at present.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the private prescription of Temazepam and other drugs is controlled and regulated; what record is kept by(a) doctors and (b) pharmacists of private prescriptions; what plans she has to tighten up the private prescription of Temazepam; and if she will make a statement. [19011]

  Mr. Bowis
  Temazepam is a prescription-only medicine under the Medicines Act 1968 and is also controlled under schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985.

  When prescribing in a private capacity, general practitioners operate outside the general medical service regulations. It is good professional practice to keep accurate medical records. The General Medical Council has regarded as serious professional misconduct the prescription or supply of drugs of dependence otherwise than in the course of bona fide treatment.

  When a private prescription is dispensed by a pharmacist an entry must be made in the prescription-only register on the date of dispensing or, if that is not reasonably practicable, on the following day. The register must be preserved for two years after the date of the last entry, and the prescription must be retained for two years from the date on which the prescription-only medicine was supplied, or for a repeat prescription two years from the date on which the prescription was dispensed for the last time.

  The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 require that the dispensing pharmacist should retain private prescriptions for controlled drugs for two years from the date of dispensing. They also require that private prescriptions should be produced for inspection on request by the Home Office drugs inspectorate or by other persons authorised to demand this information.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ban Temazepam in its jelly formulation; and if she will make a statement. [19023]

  Mr. Bowis
  The abuse of Temazepam capsules by drug misusers is of particular concern and we are keeping the position under review.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to health authorities on the prescription of Temazepam; what is the latest date that she issued these guidelines; what guidelines she plans to issue; and if she will make a statement. [19012]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about the effects of Temazepam on patients is given in the British National Formulary, which is issued by the Department to all general practitioners free of charge.

  In 1993, the Department asked family health services authorities to work with local general practitioners to agree local targets on the reduction of all benzodiazepine prescribing.

  In March 1994, the Department distributed copies of the Mental Health Foundation's booklet "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence" to every family health services authority and recommended their use by general practitioners wishing to help patients who may be dependent on benzodiazepines. The need for further guidance is being kept under review.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each agency and the central Department for which she is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19659]

  Mr. Sackville
  The total cost of relocating Department of Health staff, including agencies, in each year since 1992–93 was £9.4 million, as shown in the table.

  Information on the highest three claims and the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Summary of Department of Health employees' removal costs

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  5.8

  1993–94

  3.0

  1994–95

  0.6

  Total

  9.4

  Source:Departmental Accounts.

  Notes:

  1. Costs include—Preliminary visits;

  2. Subsistence connected with removals;

  3. Removal costs;

  4. Estate Agent fees;

  5. Legal and survey fees;

  6. Miscellaneous relocation expenses;

  7. Bridging finance expenses;

  8. Services of relocation companies.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure the continuance of supply of category A drugs used for medical purposes for prescriptions on weekends and bank holidays; and if she will make a statement. [19456]

  Mr. Malone
  Family health services authorities are responsible for ensuring that patients have access to an appropriate level of pharmaceutical services in their area at all times, including bank holidays and weekends. Class A drugs such as diamorphine may not be held as stock by all community pharmacies, so where patients requiring them are discharged from secondary care at a weekend, they should be provided with sufficient medicines or suitable arrangements made to ensure cover is available before discharge.

  Solvent Abuse
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report on solvent abuse from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be published; and if she will make a statement. [19947]

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall publish the report "Volatile Substance Abuse" tomorrow. The report provides a background to solvent abuse, sets out its causes, prevalence and patterns and looks at the toxicology of the 134
  substances involved. It goes on to consider issues of prevention, help for misusers and their families, training and planning. We are grateful to the advisory council for producing its thorough and timely report. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  As a result of the recommendation that the Government should stimulate the establishment of an industry-led forum to consider the misuse potential of its products and how to reduce it, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is writing to industry representatives seeking their assistance.

  HIV-AIDS
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money has been granted to Oxfordshire health authority to provide HIV-AIDS services for each year since 1990; and what is the planned allocation for 1995–96; [18681]

  (2) which HIV-AIDS specific voluntary sector agencies have received money from Oxfordshire health authority to provide HIV-AIDS services for each year since 1990; how much they have received; and what are the planned allocations for 1995–96; [18682]

  (3) how much money has been granted to Oxfordshire social services to provide HIV-AIDS services for each year since 1990; [18683]

  (4) which HIV-AIDS specific voluntary sector agencies have received money from Oxfordshire social services to provide HIV-AIDS services for each year since 1990; how much they received; and what are the planned allocations for 1995–96. [18684]

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations to the national health service for HIV-AIDS services are distributed to regional health authorities. Information on allocations below regional level including allocations from district health authorities to the voluntary sector is not available centrally.

  Since 1994–95 the scope of the AIDS support grant scheme for local authorities has been confined to community care services for people with HIV-AIDS, with local authority prevention work funded separately under the healthy alliances scheme.

  Before 1994–95 AIDS support grant allocations were made on an open-ended bidding system. Since 1994–95, however, information became available for the first time on the number of live AIDS cases resident in individual authorities and indicative allocations have since been made on this basis. This allows resources to be targeted more closely to areas of highest prevalence.

  In moving to the new method for AIDS support grant allocations, it was clear that some authorities had historically received a greater proportion of resources than they were entitled to under the new system. An element of transitional relief for 1994–95 was given to those authorities most affected by the change to the new system.

  The amounts allocated to Oxfordshire county council under the AIDS support grant scheme and the amounts of grant provided from Oxfordshire social services to HIV-AIDS voluntary sector agencies are as follows:
  135

  AIDS support grant allocation (£)

  Voluntary Sector funding

  £

  1990–91

  156,250

  OXAIDS

  15,000

  Oxford Body Positive

  17,000

  General Hospitals District

  Samaritan Fund

  5,000

  The Ley Community

  10,000

  1991–92

  162,500

  OXAIDS

  17,000

  Oxford Body Positive

  9,000

  General Hospitals District

  Samaritan Fund

  1,000

  1992–93

  240,000

  OXAIDS

  33,000

  Oxford Body Positive

  35,000

  General Hospitals District

  Samaritan Fund

  3,000

  The Ley Community

  15,000

  Samaritan Fund

  10,000

  1993–94

  240,000

  OXAIDS

  33,000

  Oxford Body Positive

  35,000

  The Ley Community

  15,000

  1994–95

  130,000

  1£20,000

  1995–96

  115,000

  1£20,000

  1 Healthy Alliances allocation

  Information on the amount of voluntary sector provision is taken from the end of year report to the Department and is not yet available for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Special Transitional Grants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities were unable to spend 85 per cent. of their special transitional grant for 1993–94 in the independent sector. [19409]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have not yet received all the audited returns of expenditure of the 1993–94 special transitional grant.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of special transitional grant was spent by each authority in 1993–94 on non-residential or nursing care. [19410]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of special transitional grant was spent by each authority in 1993–94 in(a) the private sector and (b) the voluntary sector. [19411]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the capital asset value of the computing and information technology services included in the market testing—competitive tendering programme for each regional health authority for 1994–95(a) as recorded on asset registers at 31 March 1994, (b) at project net book value as at 31 March 1994 and (c) as identified in the statement of services requirements of assets likely to be transferred to the successful supplier. [19503]
  136
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many metres of mahogany or products containing it her Department has bought in the last five years; and if she will list the purposes and the costs. [19843]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available. However, the Department's policy is not to purchase mahogany or other tropical hardwoods. Specifications for the purchase of relevant items are written to exclude the use of these materials.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirements there are for officials in her Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before her and her Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in her Department in the first three months of the year. [19348]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Department follows guidance that applies to all Government Departments. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade today. My Department published one compliance cost assessment in the first three months of this year, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rules and regulations she repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19362]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Twenty-four rules and regulations were made in the first three months of 1995 of which three revoked earlier instruments, five updated fees and charges and one facilitated competition. One had costs for business.

  Statutory instruments which were not themselves regulatory, including those dealing with the establishment, dissolution or transfers of property of individual national health service trusts, Orders in Council and commencement orders have been excluded, as have instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure.

TRANSPORT

  Road Pricing (Research)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department has spent to date on(a) research into road pricing and (b) research into motorway charging. [19878]

  Mr. Watts
  To date, the Department of Transport has spent £2.8 million on research into city congestion charging and £1.9 million on research into motorway tolling.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has brought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19845]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not have this information. Current policy is not to buy mahogany.

  London Taxis
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about London taxi fares and fees. [20164]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has made an order increasing London taxi fares by about 4.44 per cent. on average with effect from Saturday 22 April 1995. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum fare of £1.20, including a hire charge of 80p for the first 513 m, 561.22 yd, or 111 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 256.5 m, 280.61 yd, or 55.5 seconds up to 6 miles and 20p for each 171 m, 187.07 yd, or 37 seconds thereafter.

  The Secretary of State has decided that there will be no increase this year in the fees for London taxi driver and vehicle licences, currently £87 and £78 respectively.

  Transport Research Laboratory Staff
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons ex-staff of the Transport Research Laboratory are being re-employed either directly or through external agents following recent staff reductions; what is the number of those ex-staff re-employed on a full or part-time basis; and what is the cost of this re-employment. [18704]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Transport Research Laboratory.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Wootton to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 19 April 1995:
  You asked a Parliamentary Question about the re-employment of former staff of the Transport Research Laboratory following recent staff reductions. The Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety has asked me to reply.
  The staff reductions at TRL, which were necessary because of the reduced demand for the Laboratory's services, have led to the reorganisation of work in some areas and some transitional problems. As a result, 17 former staff are currently being re-employed directly on a part-time basis to meet short term pressures of work. The cost of this re-employment under fixed term contracts will be £129k. In addition, TRL are presently using the services on 16 former staff through external agents or contractors, 2 on a full-time basis, the remainder on a part-time basis. These former staff are engaged to undertake specific tasks of a limited duration and for which resources are in the main not required on a regular basis. The cost of employing these former staff through agencies or contractors varies month to month; the cost in March 1995 was £29k.

  I hope this satisfactorily answers your enquiry.

  New Road Schemes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what year the target of new starts for road schemes was last achieved. [19070]

  Mr. Watts
  In the year 1994–95.

  National Road Programme
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led to the revision of the national road programme summary of milestones for 1994–95. [19071]

  Mr. Watts
  The national road programme summary of milestones for 1994–95 was revised to reflect the priorities set out in the trunk roads in England 1994 review and the resources available following the 1994 Budget.

  Air Service Agreements
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to resist the EU negotiating bilateral air agreements until such time as the policy regarding state aid to airlines is identical in each member state; and if he will make a statement. [19914]

  Mr. Norris
  It is the Government's policy that member states should remain free to negotiate bilateral air service agreements, except in those cases, for example with Switzerland, where a mandate has been agreed in the Council of Ministers. The Government remain committed to opposing state aid in air transport which distorts competition.

  White Hart Roundabout, Yeading
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to install phased traffic lights at the White Hart roundabout, Yeading, to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [19485]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the London borough of Ealing, but I understand that it expects to have the signals in place before the end of July.

  Rail Safety Advice
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice about rail safety is provided by Railtrack to schools; and what comparable advice was supplied to schools before privatisation. [19440]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has continued and developed the previous BR programme of school visits which incorporates talks, discussions and the distribution of a range of support materials. Train drivers and British Transport police officers visit schools regularly, warning children of the danger they can cause to themselves and to others. Besides the dangers of playing on the lines, topics covered include trespass, vandalism, high voltage electricity and stone throwing.

  Since Railtrack assumed responsibility, anti-trespass and vandalism initiatives, including school visits, have been co-ordinated by the Railtrack zones in co-operation with train operators and the BTP. This has led to an increase in the level of involvement of local managers and in support from communities.

  Navigational Lights
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional navigational lighting or related equipment is required for a sea-going vessel plying between the Seacon terminal on the Isle of Dogs on the River Thames to any inland port on the River Rhine capable of handling a vessel of up to 2,000 tonnes which are additional to those required by international rules for the sea; and under what authority any such additional requirement would be made. [19769]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The requirements for navigational lights on the River Thames conform to international rules as set out in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea in 1972. There are no additional requirements.

  The requirements for navigational lights in German inland waters are matters for the German authorities. It is for the owners and operators of ships operating between the UK and ports on the Rhine to ensure that they are aware of any localised navigational regulations.

  Marine Accident Inspectors
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies, with or without the relevant names, of the contract of employment, and terms of reference and duties of(a) the chief and deputy chief inspectors of marine accidents, and (b) those of their other inspectors; and what is the civil service or other basis of their remuneration and terms of employment. [19763]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The chief inspector of marine accidents has been employed on a contract since 3 January 1989 which has been extended until 31 December 1996. He is employed as a grade 5 in the salary range £36,739 to £54,815.

  The deputy chief inspector of marine accidents is a grade 6 who is employed on standard conditions and the salary range is £28,213 to £47,044.

  There are three principal inspector of marine accidents who are employed in the grade 7 salary range £24,724 to £38,290. There are six inspectors of marine accidents who are employed in the salary range £20,454 to £32,752. They are employed on standard civil service terms of employment.

  The marine accident investigation branch is responsible for investigating accidents occurring to or on UK-registered ships and other ships in UK territorial waters, with the objective of improving safety of life at sea.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what persons or body appointed the chief and deputy chief inspectors of marine accidents of the marine accident investigation branch of his Department; and if he will list the experience, professional qualifications and the previous appointments in the field of marine investigation of each inspector. [19762]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Secretary of State for Transport appoints the chief and deputy chief inspector of marine accidents.
  140
  Prior to his appointment, the chief inspector worked in the shipping industry for 33 years and is a fully qualified and experienced master mariner. His previous work on marine safety and on-board investigations included an appointment in industry as safety manager in BP Shipping.

  The incumbent deputy chief inspector has a successful background of 37 years in shipping and is also a fully qualified and experienced master mariner. He spent 27 years at sea and nine and a half years as a nautical surveyor in the Department of Transport marine directorate, later the Marine Safety Agency, before his present appointment. As a nautical surveyor, he carried out investigations into a number of marine accidents.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what means the chief inspector of marine accidents has discharged his statutory duty of publishing collective summaries of the investigations made by his branch; and if he will list the date and reference of each such report. [19764]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Collective summaries of investigations were published on the following dates.

  Edition number

  Date

  1/90

  January 1990

  2/90

  June 1990

  3/90

  September 1990

  1/91

  March 1991

  2/91

  October 1991

  1/92

  April 1992

  2/92

  August 1992

  3/92

  December 1992

  1/93

  April 1993

  2/93

  August 1993

  3/93

  December 1993

  1/94

  April 1994

  2/94

  August 1994

  3/94

  December 1994

  Edition Number 1/95 is due to be published on 30 April 1995.

  Shipping Accidents, Thames
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the collision at Tower bridge, London at 02.30 on 18 October 1981 between the pleasure launch Hurlingham and the overtaking dredger vessel Bowtrader was referred to in the report to him of his marine accident investigation branch into the collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness in August 1989; if he will list the date and nature of specific action taken by his Department consequent to that collision; what assessment was made by his responsible officials of the likelihood of its repetition; and what assessment he has made of the similarities and dissimilarities between the circumstances and consequences of that collision and that occurring near Southwark bridge on 20 August 1989; [19766]

  (2) what action was taken by any part of his Department on, or in respect of, crafts or ships on the River Thames subsequent to the collision between the passenger launch Hurlingham and the dredger Bowtrader at 02.30 on 18 October 1981 in respect of (a) laden or unladen trim of such, or similar, dredgers, (b) communication between bow lookout and wheelhouses and the numbers and duties of bow lookouts and (c) standing or visible orders to be made by the vessel owners, operators or captains in respect of these matters. [19765]
  141
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The case of the collision between the pleasure launch Hurlingham and the dredger Bowtrader on 18 October 1981 is dealt with in annexe 11 of the chief inspector's report; the similarities and differences relating to earlier incidents are discussed in section 15 of the report. The incident was investigated by the casualty branch of the surveyor general's organisation and discussions held with the Port of London authority. The Department's surveyors were alerted to the problems of the view from the rear of the wheelhouse in vessels such as the Hurlingham and advised to consider this aspect in relation to survey and inspection of both new and existing vessels.

  Marchioness Disaster
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures were available prior to the establishment of the marine accident investigation branch in July 1989 for preliminary internal and non-public but published investigation, comparable to that mounted by it in respect of the Marchioness disaster, that would also assist him in deciding whether to initiate a full public inquiry authorised by the Merchant Shipping Acts. [19761]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Section 55 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 provided for a preliminary inquiry to be held by a person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State. PI reports were not published but lessons learnt might be promulgated through merchant shipping notices.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the main report of the chief inspector of marine accidents into the collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness on 20 August 1989; when he decided and on what grounds, that the nature of the report was such as to not require a full and formal inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts; when he first made that decision public and by what means; when he published the chief inspector's report; and what persons or bodies he consulted prior to his decision not to hold a full public inquiry. [19767]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport received the report of the chief inspector of marine accidents on 5 June 1990. The report was published on 15 August 1991 and in December that year my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced the Hayes inquiry into river safety. On publication of the Hayes report in July 1992, in an oral statement made in this House on 9 July 1992, Official Report, columns 698–704, I said there was no case for a formal investigation because, as far as we were aware, all the facts had been established and no useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry. When making his decision, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State for Transport to consult other parties.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each occasion when a Minister of the Crown indicated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to initiate an inquiry into the collision of the Marchioness and the Bowbelle on 20 August 1989(a) orally in Parliament, (b) by written answer, (c) in writing to an hon. Member, (d) in writing to a relative of any deceased, or their legal representative and (e) in formal interview or deputation, stating in
  142
  respect of any of the above any reason for declining to act other than the claim that no further or significant evidence had been drawn to his attention which had not already been contained, or dealt with, in the report from his marine accident investigation branch. [19771]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the recommendations made by the jury at the completion of the inquest into the death of persons aboard the Marchioness on 20 August 1989, he will reconsider his refusal to initiate a review of the rescue arrangements on the Thames by an independent person as recommended by John W. Haynes Esq., in his report to him of July 1992, Cm 1991. [19770]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Thames rescue arrangements have been kept under review since the Marchioness disaster and we do not propose to initiate a further independent review. The London emergency services liaison panel has recently published new procedures for dealing with major incidents on the River Thames, with the police as co-ordinators of the emergency response. The river users liaison safety sub-committee of the London district marine safety committee has also completed a review of craft available for rescue throughout the tidal Thames and made recommendations for the provision of lifesaving appliances, grab-chains and warning signs along the river banks. We are giving urgent and careful attention to the recommendations made by the jury at the Marchioness inquest.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in respect of the activity of the inspector primarily responsible for investigating the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle near Southwark bridge on 20 August 1989, he will list(a) the witnesses interviewed at the initiative of the inspector, (b) those who directly or indirectly approached his marine accident investigation branch, and (c) others who have given evidence in any court and inquest relating to this event; and, in relation to those named in lists (b) and (c), if he will give the occasion and date on which they made the approach or gave evidence. [19772]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The MAIB inquiry team obtained evidence either orally or in the form of written statements from well over 100 people. In the case of most of the survivors, the statements were those made to the police. It is not normal practice to provide a list of witnesses. My Department does not have any responsibility for keeping records of those who have given evidence in courts which are outside the jurisdiction of my Department.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what times the operations manager of South Coast Shipping and the officers of the Metropolitan police boarded the dredger Bowbelle on 20 January 1989, as referred to in his answer of 11 January 1994,Official Report, column 133; by what means; and if those times were recorded in the ship's log. [19780]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The exact time at which such persons boarded Bowbelle and by what means is not known to my Department except that it was while the vessel was anchored in Gallions reach.

  143
  She was at anchor between 03.25 hours and approximately 04.45 hours on 20 August 1989. There is no record in the ship's official log book nor in the deck log book of such persons boarding Bowbelle on 20 August 1989.

  Marine Accident Investigation Branch
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the statutory bases of the marine accident investigation branch; when, for what reason and by whom it was proposed that it replace some of the functions of the surveyor general's organisation; who was consulted about the change; and what documents relating to its creation were placed before Parliament for information or approval prior to, or at the time of, its inception. [19760]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The marine accident investigation branch was established under section 33 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and operates under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1994. The then Secretary of State for Transport proposed its establishment in the Merchant Shipping Bill published in 1987. The reasons for this proposal were set out in paragraphs 47 to 52 of "Merchant Shipping: Legislative Proposals," Cm 239, published in October 1987. Parliament was consulted about the change, and the' relevant legislation—including the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989, since superseded—was placed before it.

  Navigation Byelaws
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what agreement, regulation or similar instrument of the International Maritime Organisation prohibits, with or without specific application, the introduction of local navigation byelaws, additional to international arrangements otherwise in force, for those parts of ports or navigable waterways possessing acknowledged and particular hazards to safe navigation. [19768]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: None. Harbour authorities have powers to regulate navigation in waters within their jurisdiction.

  Road Schemes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the trunk road schemes which have been assessed by the use of the cost-benefit analysis method since 1979 and which have now been constructed what was(a) the capital cost of the scheme as included in the COBA assessment submitted to the public inquiry, (b) the net present value of the scheme as calculated in that assessment, (c) the actual capital cost of building the scheme and (d) the net present value of the scheme of the COBA assessment submitted to the public inquiry, if it had used the actual capital costs of the scheme in the calculation. [17786]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon Member.
  144
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 19 April 1995:
  As you know, Mr. John Watts, Minister for Railways and Roads, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for a list of those road schemes assessed by COBA since 1979 and which have now been constructed; in each case giving (a) the capital cost estimate submitted to the public inquiry, (b) the net present value estimated at the public inquiry, (c) the actual cost of building the scheme and (d) the estimate of the net present value had the actual final cost been used in the calculation.
  I regret that the information you asked for is not held centrally by the Agency and given the number of schemes involved a file search to extract it could only be done at disproportionate cost.
  However, I can say that a recent study of 6 schemes has indicated that the overall post-construction net present value is very close to that predicted prior to public inquiry on those schemes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what investigation the Serious Fraud Office has made or is carrying out into Robertson Associates or Robertsons Research. [14528]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office is investigating the affairs of Butte Mining plc, and the circumstances under which the company was floated on the stock exchange in October 1987. The circumstances surrounding the issue of listing particulars for a further share issue in April 1988 are also under consideration. This involves scrutiny of several other companies, but it is the practice of the Serious Fraud Office not to give operational details of continuing investigations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Market Testing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the capital asset value of the computing and information technology services included in the market testing—competitive tendering programme for each regional health authority for 1994–95(a) as recorded on asset registers at 31 March 1994, (b) at project net book value as at 31 March 1994 and (c) as identified in the statement of services requirements of assets likely to be transferred to the successful supplier.

  Mr. Moss
  Nil.

  Bridge Programme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been expanded on the bridge strengthening programme in Northern Ireland; what are the estimates for 1995–96; when he expects the programme to be completed; and if he will list the bridges replaced, the cost of each bridge, the original estimate and which bridges and at what cost have still to be replaced; and if he will list the number of sites where replacement work is in progress.

  Mr. Moss
  In the last three years, expenditure on the bridge assessment and strengthening programme has been as follows:

  1992–93: £1,850,000

  1993–94: £5,072,000

  1994–95: £6,249,000

  145
  Information prior to 1992–93 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The provisional allocation for the 1995–96 financial year is £5,000,000.

  It is planned that the assessment programme will be completed by 31 December 1988. The timing of the completion of the associated strengthening works will depend on the volume of work identified by the assessments and the availability of finance.

  The bridges replaced in the period 1992–93 to 199495 were as follows:

  Road Service Division

  Bridge

  Estimatedcost £000

  Actualcost £000

  Ballyemena

  Aldergrove

  420

  410

  Belfast

  Lower WindsorAvenue (Footbridge)

  230

  207

  Coleraine

  Faughan

  181

  219

  Swanns

  1,100

  not finalised

  Rascahan

  84

  78

  Cahery

  43

  42

  Park

  10

  12

  Mullarts

  45

  41

  Lisdillon

  13

  12

  Drumrankin

  20

  29

  Craigavon

  Tartaraghan Road

  4.5

  4.1

  Aguill

  70

  62

  Drumgaw Lane

  41

  36

  Lisdrumburghas

  23

  21

  Brootally

  25

  19

  Coolsallagh1

  41

  26

  Ballynacor Lane

  7

  8

  Crossdened

  24

  25

  Hanslough

  25

  22

  Downpatrick

  Ballydrain Road

  15

  15

  Tullybrannigan

  97

  127

  Carson's Lane

  11

  11

  Ballydugan Road

  22

  22

  Peartree Road

  8

  8

  Omagh

  Meenacloy

  50

  40

  Moher

  35

  45

  Ligfordrum

  30

  30

  Flood Lodge

  15

  15

  Carnony

  30

  25

  Formil

  40

  45

  Glenhull

  30

  30

  Dromore Culvert

  35

  40

  Claggan

  20

  20

  Greencastle

  40

  30

  Green

  35

  40

  Trillick

  65

  65

  1 Scope of scheme reduced after initial estimate.

  A further 20 small bridges in Omagh division have been replaced by pipes at a total cost of £205,000.

  The bridges which have so far been identified as requiring replacement are as follows:
  146

  Road Service Division

  Bridge

  Estimated cost £000

  Ballymena

  Bailee

  71

  Number 289

  58

  Number 290

  24

  Number 336

  10

  Number 340

  10

  Moss

  11

  British

  60

  Barn Halt

  320

  Downshire

  970

  Chapel

  16

  Belfast

  King's

  1,900

  Ballymacarret Flyover

  800

  Coleraine

  Coshquin

  98

  Rallagh

  66

  Altinure

  50

  Chathamhall

  15

  Stroan Middle

  15

  Movenis

  23

  Craigavon

  Gosford Forest

  50

  Captain's

  75

  Carcullion

  20

  Kernan Underpass

  100

  Drumnagoon

  100

  Clare Glen

  80

  Derrynoose

  100

  Uminavore

  30

  Acton

  25

  Tavanagh

  80

  Carnbane

  140

  Charles Doyle's

  45

  Madden Railway

  240

  Derrykernan

  20

  Derrycughan

  96

  Miller's

  42

  Tullysarran Road

  20

  Keadymore

  120

  Mowhan

  72

  Waterie Lane

  42

  Lisnafeedy Road

  15

  Downpatrick

  M1 over Stockman's Lane (2 bridges)2

  2,000

  Crumlin Road, Glenavy

  450

  Tullynakill Road

  300

  A21 South Street2

  125

  Omagh

  Ardtrea

  350

  2 A final decision to replace these bridges has not yet been made. Replacement is the favoured option.

  The bridge replacement schemes currently on site are as follows:

  Road Service Division

  Bridge

  Estimated cost £000

  Ballymena

  Drumcrow Road

  70

  Connor Burn

  50

  Greenfield Road

  25

  Belfast

  Connswater

  1,300

  Omagh

  Miniburns (2 bridges)

  300

ENVIRONMENT

  Feral Mink
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the damage being done to British wildlife by feral mink. [17921]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This matter is in the hands of the Government's statutory scientific adviser, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Unfit Housing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of houses in England which are unfit for human habitation. [17929]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  According to the statutory definition, in 1991 there were 1.5 million such dwellings. Half these are unfit on only one item and we estimate that one third of the properties could be made fit for less than £500.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the bidding guidance for the single regeneration budget to specify more clearly the criteria which will be given greatest weight when determining the success or otherwise of an application. [17930]

  Mr. Curry
  The criteria for assessing bids for financial support from the SRB challenge fund are contained in the updated bidding guidance which was published on 12 April 1995 and copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he issues in respect of the single regeneration bid to recognise the needs of refugees. [19461]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The guidance to bidders for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund was released on 12 April 1995. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The guidance does not refer explicitly to support for projects to meet the needs of refugees, although such projects could fall within the challenge fund's objectives where they form part of a local regeneration strategy.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bids to help refugees, including bids from the Refugee Council,(a) failed and (b) succeeded under the single regeneration bid. [19460]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information is not specifically collected about unsuccessful and successful bids for support from the single regeneration budget challenge fund which are aimed at helping refugees, since most challenge fund bids address a range of objectives. However, about a third of the 201 successful challenge fund bids are specifically intended to benefit minority ethnic communities. Some of these bids are likely to include help for refugees.

  Rural Development Commission (Training)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has held with the Department of Employment about the future of the Rural Development Commission's direct training scheme; and if he will make a statement. [17931]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have met my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to discuss this issue. The Rural Development Commission has identified an outline plan for alternative provision, and is investigating the scope for supporting young people on the new entrants training scheme through modern apprenticeships. The commission is now developing detailed proposals in consultation with officials from both Departments.

  North Sea
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the North sea. [17932]

  Mr. Atkins
  Campaign literature from organisations such as Greenpeace, Seas at Risk, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and a few letters from members of the public.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with representatives of other Governments about the pollution of the earth's atmosphere and its likely effect on the climate; and if he will make a statement. [17933]

  Mr. Gummer
  During the Berlin conference of the parties to the climate change convention, which ended on 7 April, I had numerous discussions with representatives of other Governments, particularly during intensive negotiations on future commitments under the convention. The mandate which was adopted is consistent with United Kingdom and European Union objectives and opens the way for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries in the period after 2000.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the increased average temperature of Reddish and of Denton in Greater Manchester over the next 10, 25 and 50 years. [17936]

  Mr. Atkins
  Specific estimates of future temperatures are not available for local areas in the United Kingdom. The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research has predicted that the average temperature for the UK as a whole could increase by 0.1 deg C, 0.5 deg C and 1 deg C over the next 10, 25 and 50 years respectively.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for the development of compulsory competitive tendering in housing management. [17934]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have put in place the legislative framework extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. The first contracts are due to be in operation from April 1996. I am pleased to
  149
  say that local authorities are making good progress with their preparations.

  Urban Landscape
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he can do to encourage high standards of urban design and ensure new developments enhance urban landscapes. [17935]

  Mr. Gummer
  I will shortly launch a national campaign to promote consideration of urban design and its contribution to the quality of the built environment. The campaign will focus on specific sites where development is anticipated, and will help to assess how greater attention to urban design issues can help to ensure new development fits successfully into the existing built environment.

  The urban design campaign is an example of action stemming from my Department's initiative "Quality in Town and Country" which seeks to encourage debate and stimulate ideas about what Government and others can do to help achieve quality in the built environment, in city, town and village.

  Council Housing Transfers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress there has been with the large-scale voluntary transfer of council housing to housing associations. [17937]

  Mr. Curry
  Forty local authorities have transferred almost 180,000 dwellings, generating over £2.6 billion in private finance. The 1995–96 disposals programme includes a further 13 authorities and 51,000 dwellings. We are working with metropolitan authorities to identify ways of taking the policy forward in urban areas as well.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his further proposals to reconsider unitary status for former county boroughs. [17939]

  Mr. Gummer
  We shall direct the Local Government Commission to conduct reviews of nine districts, four of which were, or contained within their areas, former county boroughs. We are also looking at the case for referring other districts to the commission, some of which are former county boroughs. We intend that the reviews should begin in early July, when Sir David Cooksey takes up his appointment as chairman of the commission.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest plans for changes to the area cost adjustment. [17940]

  Mr. Curry
  We have commissioned research which may enable us to take a fresh look at the boundaries of the zones used in the calculation of the area cost adjustment. The findings of this research will be discussed with the local authority associations in the summer.

  The local authority associations may put forward other possible methodology changes for discussion.

  Environment Bill
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be maintaining a dialogue with environmental green groups before and during the passage of the Environment Bill through the Commons; and if he will make a statement. [17941]

  Mr. Atkins
  On 13 October, my right hon. Friend published the draft clauses and schedules in respect of the environment agency. This allowed interested parties a chance to inform themselves of the details of the proposed legislation before it was introduced to Parliament. Subsequently, both Ministers and officials have met with various groups, including environmental groups, on the provisions contained within the Bill.

  Corruption
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of corruption in local government. [17942]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There are cases where a local authority auditor is investigating allegations of corruption, but everyone is innocent until proved guilty. Criminal proceedings are, of course, a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the London Docklands development corporation. [17943]

  Mr. Curry
  The London Docklands development corporation is pursuing a phased withdrawal from the docklands urban development area to be concluded on 31 March 1998.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details from each Government Department of expenditure on energy and energy efficiency measures incurred during 1993–94 with reference to total expenditure on energy (£), total energy used (kwh), energy expenditure per M2(£), the standard performance indicator, expenditure on energy efficiency measures (£), total floor area of Government Departments, and percentage progress on £/m relative to 1992–93. [19117]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Yes. Some points of detail are still being verified with Departments, but I expect the data to be available shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask the Director General of Ofwat to explain his failure to reply to the letter dated 18 January from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about cesspool emptying charges; and if he will make a statement. [19084]

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. However, I understand that he will reply to the hon. Member's letter shortly.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which overtime has been paid, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [119688]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information covers staff in my Department, excluding Ordnance Survey and PSA Services.

  Overtime

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Hours

  £

  Hours

  £

  Hours

  £

  DOE

  148

  1,267

  116

  967

  58

  495

  SAFE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  337

  Planning Inspectorate

  4

  24

  3

  18

  2

  16

  Building Research Est

  15

  130

  14

  125

  11

  97

  The Buying Agency

  1

  6

  1

  8

  1

  7

  QEII Conf Centre

  13

  130

  13

  128

  12

  118

  Note:

  Both hours and cost are given to the nearest 000.

  Sickness:

  Details of sickness absence taken from the OHSA reports shows in 1992 DOE lost 58,741 man days and in 1993 55,587 days (including 4,481 days for the Planning Inspectorate and 19 days for QEIICC). Data for 1994 are not yet available.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek to extend the right to buy their homes to tenants of all housing associations; and if he will make a statement. [19706]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are looking at a range of options to encourage more housing association tenants to become home owners and will be consulting in due course.

  Pollution, North Sea
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to tackle North sea pollution. [17907]

  Mr. Atkins
  To continue and develop the measures agreed by the first, second and third North sea conferences which have been successfully addressing the protection of the North sea environment since 1983.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has concluded, in the light of the recommendations of the deregulation task forces, whether the scope of the building regulations in England and Wales should be widened to address electrical safety. [20162]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  After consideration of this issue, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee has recommended that more detailed work should be undertaken on a proposal that electrical safety should be introduced into the building regulations for work which already has to be notified to building control authorities. I have accepted this recommendation and have asked for 152
  additional studies to be undertaken to identify the costs, benefits and practical implications.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further information he has made available to local authorities about standard spending assessments for 1995–96. [20163]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A publication, "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1995–96", has been produced to provide details of the standard spending assessment of each local authority. Copies have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies have also been sent to every local authority in England, and to the local authority associations.

  The tables from the handbook are being made available in computer-readable form.

  Council Charge Capping
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the rules and practices relating to council charge capping; and if he will make a statement. [17938]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Convention on Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the contracting parties to the first review of the intergovernmental convention on climate change held in Berlin recently. [18262]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) earlier today.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work is being done by the United Nations Development Programme to produce an analysis of the problems of Sierra Leone, and what is the timetable of action that will be followed by the United Nations to act on that analysis. [18669]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are not aware of any specific analysis. However, UNDP, along with other development agencies, is involved in assisting the Government of Sierra Leone both in the transition to democratic rule and in tackling their development and humanitarian problems.

  South Africa
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much development aid is being given by the United Kingdom to South Africa in 1994–95 and 1995–96(a) as bilateral aid, (b) through the European development fund and (c) through other multi-lateral initiative. [18878]

  Mr. Baldry
  Bilateral aid expenditure in 1994–95 is estimated to be £15 million. In 1995–96 we expect
  153
  expenditure to be about £20 million. EC aid to South Africa is provided not through the European development fund but under a specific line in the EC's budget. The UK share of the EC allocation was about £15 million in 1994 and about £17 million for 1995. To date, no loans have been made by the World bank or African development bank; our contributions through the various United Nations programmes are not readily attributable to individual countries.

  Pergau Dam
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his written answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 444, for what reason expenditure on the Pergau dam project was not listed in table 1 on page 34 of the supply estimates, class II for 1991–92, HC 236–II; and under which subhead of which vote parliamentary authority was sought for expenditure in 1991–92. [18706]

  Mr. Baldry
  Table I of the 1991–92 estimate for class II, vote 5 lists projects on which expenditure had been incurred up to March 1991. This project became effective only in July 1991. Expenditure in 1991–92 was incurred under class II, vote 5, subhead A2.

  Aid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the contribution United Kingdom aid makes to the protection and conservation of the natural environment in recipient countries. [18714]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's activities and achievements in this area under the aid programme are described in the 1995 department report, Cm 2802, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. A more detailed progress report on ODA's work, including help with tackling environmental problems, will be published shortly.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the budget for 1994–95 for expenditure on emergency engineering assistance in the former Yugoslavia; what is the proposed budget for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [18796]

  Mr. Baldry
  The ODA's expenditure on emergency infrastructure engineering in the former Yugoslavia in 1994–95 was £7.5 million.

  The total budget for 1995–96 has not yet been fixed, but ODA is continuing to fund its engineering programmes. Security permitting, the work will continue to address prevailing humanitarian needs.

  Commission on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether it is appropriate to the United 154
  Kingdom's role in the world that he should attend the meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development this year. [18352]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Department of Environment co-ordinates the United Kingdom's activities in relation to the Commission on Sustainable Development. The United Kingdom delegation will be led by the Secretary of State for the Environment. He will be supported by officials from a number of Government Departments, including the FCO.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which projects and programmes he has allocated the funding no longer allocated to the aid and trade provision projects in Turkey, Botswana and Indonesia in the financial year 1994–95. [19275]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 5 April 1995,Official Report, column 1120.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which projects and programmes he will allocate the funding(a) no longer allocated to the Pergau dam and (b) no longer allocated to the aid and trade provision projects in Turkey, Botswana and Indonesia in the 1995–96 financial year. [19276]

  Mr. Baldry
  These funds have been absorbed into the overall aid budget and allocated according to ODA's priorities and objectives as set out in the 1995 FCO-ODA departmental report, Cm 2802, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Gordon McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many projects involving the development of co-operatives in central and eastern Europe have been initiated through funds provided by the British Government through the know-how funds or otherwise; what is the total amount of money provided by the Government for training and development of co-operatives in central and eastern Europe; and what figures are available for the number of co-operatives and co-operative jobs generated by these funds. [19067]

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1990, £1,154,050 has been committed from the know-how fund in support of eight projects to assist farmers and banking co-operatives in Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and Ukraine. The European Union's PHARE programme has allocated a further 16.5 million ecu, the UK share of which is around 16 per cent. for the development of co-operatives and the training of staff in the agricultural sector. There are no figures available for the number of co-operatives and co-operative jobs generated by these funds.

  Many state-run co-operatives have been abolished as part of the reform process in former communist Europe. The know-how fund has targeted its assistance on institutions which can survive in the environment of a market economy but require help in the short term with the transformation from the state to the private sector.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has received to alter the year in which the intergovernmental conference is to be held under the Maastricht treaty. [19481]

  Mr. David Davis
  Under the terms of the Maastricht treaty on European Union, article N(2), the intergovernmental conference will be convened in 1996. I have received no formal proposals to alter this schedule.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19423]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My Department employs two political advisers. Their salaries and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following numbers by grade are full-time equivalents:

  FCO (Diplomatic and Aid wings including NRI)

  Grade

  Number of Officers

  G3

  2

  G5

  9

  G6

  7

  G7

  34

  Assistant Economist

  29

  Total

  81

  Karen People, Burma
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the treatment of the Karen people. [19293]

  Mr. Goodlad
  With our EU partners, we have expressed our concerns about the treatment of the Karen people directly to the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council. We called in the Burmese ambassador on 17 February to reinforce the EU action and to urge SLORC to call an immediate halt to the current offensive. On 10 March the EU issued a statement condemning the attacks and calling upon SLORC to find a swift and peaceful solution to the ethnic minority problem in Burma.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has 156
  bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19837]

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

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of recent violent deaths in Burundi; and what current initiatives are being taken by the international community to promote peace. [19690]

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not have an accurate assessment of the number of deaths in Burundi but are concerned at the level of violence. Action in support of the moderate and broad-based Government is being taken by the United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation of African Unity. We have given our full backing to these efforts.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the introduction of oil sanctions as a way of cutting off resources to Nigeria and promoting a return to democracy there.

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Union's measures against Nigeria will be reviewed, or strengthened, in the light of progress towards a return to democratic civilian rule. All options will, of course, be considered.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the United Nations has to appoint a special representative to assist peacemaking efforts in Sierra Leone. [18666]

  Mr. Baldry
  Following a request from the Government of Sierra Leone in December 1994 for a good offices mission, the United Nations Secretary-General sent his special representative, Ambassador Behanu Dinka, to Freetown in February.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts have been made by the international community to provide training to help the Government of Sierra Leone to bring their armed forces under control. [18665]

  Mr. Baldry
  Guinea, Nigeria and Ghana have units of their armed forces in Sierra Leone. The Government of Sierra Leone have recruited ex-Ghurkas to train Government troops.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mediation or demobilisation support from the United Nations to promote peace in the country the Government of Sierra Leone have sought. [18664]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government of Sierra Leone approached the United Nations Secretary-General in December last year to request his good offices as an intermediary to end the conflict. We are not aware of any specific request from the Government of Sierra Leone for UN support on demobilisation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Publicity
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure on(a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible, for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995–96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000. [14604]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Expenditure on all forms of publicity, publications and pamphlets by the Department in the financial year 1984–85 and each subsequent year was as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  601,000

  1985–86

  685,000

  1986–87

  879,000

  1987–88

  705,000

  1988–89

  1,384,000

  1989–90

  2,489,000

  1990–91

  2,432,000

  1991–92

  4,094,000

  1992–93

  4,217,000

  1993–94

  4,312,000

  1994–951

  4,800,000

  1995–961

  4,400,000

  1 Forecast.

  Expenditure prior to 1984–85 was not kept in this form and figures would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity campaigns and publications from 1 April 1993 involving expenditure of more than £50,000 are as follows:

  Title

  Objective

  'Foodsense' campaign

  To provide information to the general public about food and food safety issues.

  Keeping food cool and safe

  To provide consumer advice on the safe storage of food.

  At the Farmers Service

  To provide information and advice about MAFF services to farmers and growers.

  Joint Imports

  To maintain public and industry awareness of the regulations on the import of meat and plant materials from abroad.

  Plant Health

  To promote public and industry awareness of the regulations on the importation and export, for domestic and commercial use, of plants and plant material.

  Animal Health and Welfare

  To promote and heighten public and industry awareness of animal health and welfare regulations and good practice.

  158

  Publicity campaigns and publications from 1 April 1993 involving expenditure of more than £50,000 are as follows:

  Title

  Objective

  Balance in the Countryside

  To provide factual information and better understanding of environmental issues for which MAFF is responsible.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  To publicise the availability of grants to farmers, and increase public understanding of the scheme.

  Export and Trade Promotion

  To support the UK agrifood industry at home and abroad.

  National Exhibition Programme

  To provide relevant Departmental information to the agricultural industry and the general public.

  Agri-Environment

  To make farmers and growers aware of the benefits and help available from the scheme.

  Rabies Campaign

  To maintain public awareness of quarantine regulations.

  Publications and publicity by MAFF agencies are the responsibility of their chief executives. I have asked them to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 31 March 1995:

  EXPENDITURE SINCE 1979 BY MAFF AND ITS AGENCIES ON PUBLICITY AND PUBLICATIONS
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992. Expenditure details are not therefore available for the years 1979–1991, when CSL formed part of the Department. Further, CSL was re-launched as an enlarged agency in April 1994, following its merger with the Food Science Laboratories in Norwich and Aberdeen. The merger necessitated revision of several publications including the Agency's Framework Document, Statement of Standards and Quality of Service and promotional brochure and this is reflected in the outturn of expenditure in 1993/94.
  CSL's expenditure on all forms of publicity and all publications, including pamphlets, in £'000, expressed in 1994 prices follows. There has been no privatisation-related expenditure.

  Publicity

  Publications

  1992/93

  3.18

  20.60

  1993/94

  7.21

  82.40

  1994/95

  15.00

  50.00

  1995/961

  14.56

  48.54

  1Budgeted figures.

  The Agency does not run publicity campaigns as such but does participate in exhibitions, open days anda conferences. No single event or publication has cost in excess of £50,000.

  Letter from Dr. T. W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 31 March 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on publicity and publications by CVL over the last few years.
  CVL became an Executive Agency in 1990. Up to and including November 1992 our accounts were processed and produced by MAFF.
  The figures in 1994 prices for the financial years from 1992–93, including the budgetary figure for 1995–96, are as follows:
  159

  Including VAT £

  1992–931

  31,995

  1993–94

  33,698

  1994–95

  48,732

  1995–96

  41,272

  1 Based on CVL/MAFF records. A word or two of explanation about the figures may be of assistance. To facilitate the marketing of the Agency CVL uses a range of material to inform customers about it products and services. This covers publication of the Annual Report and Accounts through pamphlets about individual services to marketing brochures and customer newsletters. In this financial year we expect to produce nearly 22,000 individual items which will be distributed by various means to 4,000 customers and prospects.

  Finally, you also asked for information about privatisation-related expenditure and further details of each publicity campaign or publication involving expenditure of more than £50,000. CVL has had no expenditure in the areas relating to privatisation and no single campaign involving more than £50,000.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 31 March 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on all forms of publicity and all publications and pamphlets produced by the Agency since 1979 at 1994 prices.
  The Intervention Board has spent the following sums on publicity and publications since 1989–90 at 1994 prices. Papers for earlier years have been disposed of under the Agency's records management policy.

  Publicity £

  Publications £

  1989–90

  64,019

  31,258

  1990–91

  29,732

  22,165

  1991–92

  22,320

  27,690

  1992–93

  11,030

  31,637

  1993–94

  8,780

  36,482

  1994–95

  10,969

  30,954

  Publicity covers the cost of recruitment advertising and the Agency's stand at the Royal Show and the Festival of Food and Farming. Publications covers the cost of the Agency's Annual Report, Corporate Plan and information leaflets supplied to our customers. The Agency's 1995–96 budget has not yet been disaggregated sufficiently to allow comparable figures to be extracted, but expenditure is expected to be comparable with the previous year.
  The Agency has had no involvement in any privatisation. None of the publications or publicity campaigns has cost over £50,000.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply on behalf of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) to your question about expenditure on publicity, publication and pamphlets, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The VMD was established as a Next Steps Agency in April 1990, but did not maintain its own accounts until 1991/92. Expenditure prior to that date will therefore be included with that for core MAFF. There has been no privatisation related expenditure incurred by the VMD, and the total expenditure on all forms of publicity, publications and pamphlets is as follows:

  Year

  Total Expenditure

  Actual

  At 1994 prices

  1991/92

  7,730.33

  8,449.64

  1992/93

  21,339.06

  22,431.88

  1993/94

  59,420.91

  60,609.33

  1994/95 (forecast)

  27,978.03

  27,978.03

  1995/96 (budgeted)

  28,400.00

  27,500.00

  160
  The above figures include the VMD's Annual Report and Accounts and publicity relating to the safe use of organophosphorus sheep dips, as well as expenditure on the VMD's quarterly newsletter, MAVIS.
  During this period, there has been no publicity campaign or publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000.

  Letter from A. M. Kerr to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 31 March 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate, to your question about expenditure on publicity, publications and pamphlets. All the costs detailed below have been adjusted to reflect 1994/95 prices using H M Treasury's assumptions of GDP deflators at market prices.
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) incurred expenditure totalling £15,290 on publicity in 1993/94 in connection with the launch of the Agency. No expenditure on publicity has been incurred in 1994/95. There is no budget provision in 1995/96 for publicity.
  Expenditure on publications and pamphlets totalled £2,335 in 1993/94 and £21,398 in 1994/95. The budgeted figure for 1995/96 covering publications and pamphlets is £42,307.
  The costs of other publications, published by HMSO on behalf of PSD, are borne by HMSO who aim to recover the costs from sales revenue. Costs of producing other publications and pamphlets with a wider Food Safety emphasis have been borne centrally and are therefore covered in the core MAFF return.
  None of the above expenditure was privatization related. There has been no expenditure in excess of £50,000 incurred on any individual publicity campaign, publication or pamphlet.
  As PSD was established as an agency on 1 April 1993 figures prior to this date are not available.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 31 March 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply on his behalf to the question which you tabled on 14 March (No. 832). In this you sought information for the core Department and for each of the Agencies concerning the total expenditure on (a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced by the Department. The information that you require is as follows:

  Expenditure

  All forms of publicity (excluding publications) £

  Publications £

  1992/931

  278,000

  146,000

  1993/94

  313,000

  218,000

  1994/95

  359,000

  249,000

  1 ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency in 1992.

  Currently, the budgeted figure for 1995/96 has not been agreed. Expenditure on all forms of publicity is used to inform our 32,000 fee-paying customers about ADAS' products and MAFF/Welsh Office policy implementation (this Agency is jointed owned by the MAFF and the Welsh Office). The 1994/95 expenditure on all forms of publicity represent 0.5% of our £75 million revenue.
  The only publication exceeding £50,000 was "Agricultural Strategy" which was produced in 1994. This outlined the future for each sector of the British agricultural industry. It was distributed to clients and potential clients throughout England and Wales.

  Set-aside Compensation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996 in the increase in set-aside compensation for cereal growers by 12 ecu per tonne, agreed in May 1993 by EC Agriculture Ministers. [15792]

  Mr. Jack
  Based on expected uptake of the arable scheme and on the exchange rate in place today, it is
  161
  estimated that the additional cost will be approximately £43 million in both 1995 and 1996.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18320]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Responsibility for this matter is delegated to agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:

  JOBS LOST TO MAFF AGENCIES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992.
  Over the two year period since 1st April 1993 there have been no job losses overall within CSL and no jobs have been taken over by contractors. However, approval has been given for six members of staff to take voluntary early retirement in March 1995.

  Letter from J. Bainton to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked met to reply, in respect of Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question about jobs that have been lost to agencies in the past two, years.
  The Directorate was launched as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. Since that time no jobs have been taken over by contractors, although PSD does, as necessary, contract-out some pesticide evaluation work in order to manage work flows within the agency. However, over the period, PSD has reduced its complement of typists from 6.5 to 2.5 staff, which has largely been as a consequence of the introduction of new computer systems which have provided staff with direct access to word processing facilities.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about jobs lost to Agencies over the last two years.
  Over the past two years there have been no jobs lost to CVL by the Department and no work has been taken over by a contractor.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Paul Flynn dated 11 April 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning the loss of jobs in MAFF agencies over the past two years.
  Internal restructuring brought about by market testing in the Intervention Board resulted in the saving of nineteen posts in total during the period from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995. No posts have been taken over by contractors.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply directly to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question No. 1014. In this you asked him to list the jobs that had been lost to Agencies in his department in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.
  In the past two years ADAS has reduced its complement of permanent staff by a total of 445 posts. This represents 19% of staff in post at the 1 April 1993. The work carried out by these staff has not been taken over by contractors. Some has disappeared and some absorbed due to more efficient practices.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply on behalf of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) to your question about the jobs that
  162
  have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  I can confirm that no jobs in the VMD have been lost in the past two years as a result either of being taken over by contractors or disappearing.

  Suicide (Italian Official)
  Mr. Marlow
  To the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek through the Council to gain access to the Commission report on the suicide of the Italian official in the tobacco department and related issues. [18240]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: This is a matter for the European Commission and was subject to internal investigation by the Commission at the time.

  Warble Fly
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the number of cases of warble fly in(a) and (b) 1994. [19262]

  Mrs. Browning
  In 1984, 477 herds in England and Wales were found to be clinically infested with warble fly.

  In 1994, clinical warble fly infestation was confirmed in two herds in England and none in Wales. In addition, 45 imported animals found to be infested with warble fly were returned to the country of origin.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 6 April; and if he will make a statement. [19215]

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 6 April with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

  The Council discussed recent developments in the Community's dispute with Canada concerning Greenland halibut. I did not consider in the context of current negotiations that it was helpful or appropriate for the Council to adopt a proposed statement commenting on recent reported incidents. Accordingly, a statement was issued in the name of the presidency. I was pleased to note that all member states endorsed the importance of bringing to a successful conclusion the continuing negotiations between the EC and Canada.

  The Council also considered a proposal for the adoption of an autonomous quota for the EU in the Greenland halibut fishery. The Commissioner explained that this was necessary to permit the conservation of the fishery by providing a legal basis for controlling fishing by community vessels. However, I voted against the measure since it was inappropriate in my view to adopt it when other quota figures were on the verge of being agreed with Canada.

  There was a discussion of drift net fishing. No conclusions were reached on the now somewhat dated proposal for phasing out the use of drift nets. I emphasised the considerable importance of the various types of drift net fishing to British fishermen. The importance of orderly conduct in the tuna fishery this summer was discussed. I am pleased that this was approached in a constructive way by all member states involved and they will be meeting together at an early stage to ensure that

  163
  arrangements are satisfactorily planned. The Commissioner also said that there would be a Community vessel in the fishery in order to provide for Commission and national inspectors to ensure proper compliance with the rules. The UK will deploy Royal Navy fishery protection resources as appropriate.

  The Council decided that, in the absence of a full year proposal, the 1994 autonomous tariff quotas should be rolled forward for three months. A formal proposal to this end will be made shortly for early adoption. This will meet the immediate needs of our fish processors. A proposal for the full year, taking account of the needs of the new member states, will be considered by the Council at a later date.

  The Council noted progress on the Commission's ideas for management strategies and objectives and for quota flexibility. I emphasised the importance of ensuring that we avoided creating unhelpful new complexities in the CPF of little value to fishermen. I also emphasised the importance of taking account of the impact of industrial fisheries.

  I questioned whether proposals for socio-economic measures should be a Community measure when they were designed to address issues generally more appropriate for national social security measures. The Council expects to discuss these further in June.

  The Council agreed to adopt a single guide price for herring for 1995. Proposals for a regional price in parts of the UK and Ireland and for the future treatment of transhipments of herring will be put to the management committee. The UK voted against because this proposal did not deal adequately with the needs of Scottish pelagic fishermen.

  Because of our growing concern in the UK about the catches of immature fish I pressed the Commissioner on the importance of developing technical conservation rules and other measures to reduce these catches and so improve fish stocks. I am pleased to say that the Commissioner was able to assure me that this would form a specific part of the work in preparation for proposals to be made in June this year.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19342]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the President of the Board of Tradewhich sets out the general position on the preparation of compliance cost assessments. MAFF issued 18 compliance cost assessments accompanying draft legislation in the first three months of this year.

  Equine Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of cases of equine encephalomyelitis in each year since 1985. [19266]

  Mrs. Browning
  Equine encephalomyelitis has never been recorded in England.

  Quarantine Regulations
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what grounds he has rejected the Agriculture Select Committee's recommendations that a vaccination-based system for approved countries should replace the quarantine system for dogs arriving from those countries. [19524]

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for enabling residents of countries within the European Union to travel with their domesticated animals in an unhindered fashion; and what plans he has to relax the quarantine regulations. [19468]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's position is set out in the reply to the fifth report from the Agriculture Select Committee, Session 1993–94, laid before the House on 25 January 1995, Cm 2735.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Public Bodies"
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the next edition of the directory entitled "Public Bodies" will be published; if he will ensure that details are included for all quangos; and if he will make a statement. [19106]

  Mr. David Hunt
  "Public Bodies 1994" was published on 6 February 1995. The next edition will be "Public Bodies 1995" and will be published soon after the end of this year.

  "Public Bodies" includes statistical information about all non-departmental public bodies.

  British Gas
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the investigation into whether British Gas should retain its charter mark. [20165]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following the approach from the Gas Consumers Council on 18 January, I have now agreed with British Gas and the council a programme of action so that British Gas can retain its charter mark award by demonstrably continuing to meet tough criteria which the charter mark scheme sets down.

  In its submission, the Gas Consumers Council expressed faith in British Gas as a company and made it clear that British Gas should retain its charter mark provided it could get its performance back on track. Its main concern was a rise in complaints in the following areas:

  account queries (a 27 per cent. increase over 1993);

  service and repairs (a 9 per cent. increase over 1993);

  staff manner (up 12 per cent. on 1993); and

  lack of reply to correspondence and non-answering of telephones (up 18 per cent. on 1993).

  British Gas has assured me that its aim is to re-establish its reputation for excellence as quickly as possible and that its new structure will ultimately enable it to be more responsive to customers. It is determined to provide the highest service among gas suppliers.
  165
  However, British Gas accepts that the process of reorganisation has meant that it has not always been able to maintain its previous level of performance, despite which it has continued to meet or exceed all but three of its 39 regulated standards of service.

  The agreed programme of action needed to pass the charter mark test consists of the following main elements:
  increased training for staff dealing directly with customers and a project to address customer contact across the company's different business units to ensure that misdirected queries/complaints are handled effectively;
  front-line staff will be empowered to make amends to dissatisfied customers;
  additional telephone lines have been set up to ensure that telephone answering meets the targets of 90 per cent. of calls being answered in 30 seconds or less;
  increased staffing and weekend working to clear the backlog of correspondence and telephone inquiries and to ensure that the target of replying to 90 per cent. of correspondence within five days is met;
  a leaflet to all customers outlining the recent changes in the structure of British Gas and details of contacts for further information;
  market research to identify core customer requirements, with each business unit developing its own standards for the start of 1996;
  a freephone number to enable customers to find out the location of their nearest payment or prepayment token outlet;
  a national quality audit to ensure that the company's service work, including work carried out by contractors, is of the highest quality;
  each business unit to develop new IT systems, or enhance existing ones, to improve the quality of information available to those dealing with inquiries/complaints; and
  staff focus groups will monitor standards of service on a regular basis and identify and share best practice.

  We have agreed with British Gas and the Gas Consumers Council that we will review progress and the position on British Gas's charter mark at the end of the year.

  I believe that this very positive programme shows the real value of the charter mark scheme as a reward for excellence—the charter mark means business.

EDUCATION

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19838]

  Mr. Forth
  This Department has not purchased any mahogany, or products containing mahogany, in the past five years.

  Compensation Payments (£000)

  Compensation Costs per Pupil (£)

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1 1993–94 provisional

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  14.02

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Hackney

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  n/a

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  101

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  10.95

  n/a

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many enhancement years have been added to the pensions of teachers taking early retirement in(a) Lancashire and (b) England and Wales since 1989. [19052]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) headmasters and (b) other teaching staff including deputy headmasters have taken early retirement due to ill health each year since 1989 in(i) Lancashire and (ii) England and Wales. [19055]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the number of members of the teachers' superannuation scheme who retired on the grounds of ill health for the financial years 1989–90 to 1993–94. This includes some lecturers in further and higher education and some teachers in independent schools as well as maintained school teachers.

  Head Teachers

  Financial Year

  Lancashire

  England and Wales

  1989–90

  9

  379

  1990–91

  14

  439

  1991–92

  14

  418

  1992–93

  16

  416

  1993–94

  24

  531

  All other teaching staff

  Financial Year

  Lancashire

  England and Wales

  1989–90

  104

  3,813

  1990–91

  174

  4,499

  1991–92

  149

  4,244

  1992–93

  150

  4,481

  1993–94

  198

  5,004

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expenditure in each local authority on early retirement compensation in each year since 1990–91 for which information is available(a) in total and (b) per pupil. [19700]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total expenditure and expenditure per pupil on premature retirement compensation and Crombie payments as recorded by each local education authority for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. The expenditure figures include payments made to further and higher education lecturers and to teachers at sixth form colleges and grant-maintained schools who were granted premature retirement by the LEA. It is not possible to separate out these costs. The pupil numbers used in the calculations are for all LEA maintained schools: they exclude sixth form colleges.
  167

  Compensation Payments (£000)

  Compensation Costs per Pupil (£)

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1 1993–94 provisional

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  134

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  5.20

  0.00

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  449

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  14.03

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  403

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  12.33

  n/a

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Barking

  605

  290

  751

  601

  25.56

  11.74

  29.60

  23.09

  Barnet

  1,344

  1,425

  1,475

  1,579

  34.14

  35.39

  36.98

  46.57

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  n/a

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Bromley

  981

  586

  551

  557

  28.63

  19.42

  21.20

  19.78

  Croydon

  248

  630

  474

  443

  6.23

  15.90

  11.63

  11.59

  Ealing

  861

  479

  636

  1,077

  21.89

  12.09

  18.54

  32.97

  Enfield

  0

  0

  705

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  17.13

  0.00

  Haringey

  474

  541

  583

  612

  17.56

  19.36

  20.27

  20.67

  Harrow

  353

  534

  397

  n/a

  13.37

  19.94

  14.54

  n/a

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Hillingdon

  0

  1

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.04

  0.00

  n/a

  Hounslow

  11

  208

  253

  349

  0.34

  6.30

  7.49

  10.77

  Kingston upon Thames

  304

  358

  454

  428

  17.26

  19.80

  25.72

  26.98

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Newham

  769

  269

  364

  440

  20.12

  7.00

  9.20

  10.93

  Redbridge

  288

  387

  405

  n/a

  9.11

  11.74

  11.77

  n/a

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Waltham Forest

  324

  5

  13

  n/a

  10.61

  0.17

  0.42

  n/a

  Birmingham

  3,422

  3,947

  5,443

  4,911

  20.36

  23.44

  31.83

  30.11

  Coventry

  12

  2,982

  2,137

  450

  0.25

  61.19

  43.20

  9.02

  Dudley

  884

  851

  791

  995

  19.85

  18.98

  17.35

  22.94

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Solihull

  0

  0

  553

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  16.97

  n/a

  Walsall

  0

  643

  1,567

  676

  0.00

  13.43

  33.82

  15.71

  Wolverhampton

  94

  195

  326

  73

  2.34

  4.96

  8.01

  1.80

  Knowsley

  0

  957

  945

  1,132

  0.00

  34.31

  33.48

  40.44

  Liverpool

  2,727

  3,780

  3,058

  n/a

  34.31

  47.01

  37.50

  n/a

  St. Helens

  953

  1,126

  2,061

  n/a

  32.06

  37.98

  69.39

  n/a

  Sefton

  1,496

  1,536

  0

  n/a

  32.97

  33.53

  0.00

  n/a

  Wirral

  231

  182

  97

  28

  4.45

  3.48

  1.82

  0.54

  Bolton

  898

  1,022

  1,122

  n/a

  20.78

  23.49

  25.71

  n/a

  Bury

  848

  1,031

  1,064

  n/a

  32.30

  38.67

  38.93

  n/a

  Manchester

  2,144

  2,815

  4,400

  4,559

  31.28

  40.43

  62.40

  64.40

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  n/a

  Rochdale

  469

  493

  806

  768

  13.40

  14.10

  22.87

  22.57

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Stockport

  512

  447

  547

  677

  12.59

  11.07

  13.23

  16.10

  Tameside

  0

  0

  933

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  26.07

  n/a

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  569

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  19.07

  Wigan

  1,377

  1,681

  1,999

  2,269

  27.81

  33.96

  40.02

  44.82

  Barnsley

  200

  532

  35

  n/a

  5.94

  15.79

  1.02

  n/a

  Doncaster

  0

  379

  0

  1,583

  0.00

  7.47

  0.00

  30.42

  Rotherham

  203

  271

  0

  0

  4.80

  6.36

  0.00

  0.00

  Sheffield

  40

  0

  0

  0

  0.57

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Bradford

  1,354

  1,153

  2,860

  2,863

  16.00

  13.56

  32.88

  34.33

  Calderdale

  453

  0

  0

  0

  14.20

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Kirklees

  275

  1,465

  838

  397

  4.59

  24.27

  13.76

  6.35

  Leeds

  0

  0

  3

  3,128

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  27.67

  Wakefield

  1,228

  1,389

  1,924

  n/a

  24.82

  27.74

  37.76

  n/a

  Gateshead

  0

  44

  73

  848

  0.00

  1.46

  2.40

  27.75

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  305

  1,261

  1,608

  2,776

  7.65

  31.31

  39.60

  68.12

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  n/a

  Sunderland

  364

  470

  397

  0

  7.35

  9.43

  7.84

  0.00

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Avon

  0

  0

  747

  1,347

  0.00

  0.00

  5.52

  9.81

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Berkshire

  704

  812

  779

  890

  6.57

  7.83

  7.61

  8.60

  Buckinghamshire

  249

  265

  1,105

  1,454

  2.65

  2.81

  11.63

  16.14

  Cambridgeshire

  899

  1,447

  1,705

  834

  9.24

  14.69

  18.14

  9.87

  Cheshire

  191

  124

  1,874

  940

  1.27

  0.82

  12.23

  6.14

  Cleveland

  1,328

  1,720

  1,761

  1,901

  13.24

  16.95

  17.22

  18.43

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  168 169

  Compensation Payments (£000)

  Compensation Costs per Pupil (£)

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1 1993–94 provisional

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Derbyshire

  1,320

  1,556

  696

  2,425

  9.47

  11.10

  4.98

  18.86

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Dorset

  782

  1,183

  1,443

  1,402

  9.54

  14.51

  18.00

  17.83

  Durham

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  East Sussex

  547

  877

  1,039

  2,044

  6.77

  10.62

  12.20

  23.22

  Essex

  1,915

  1,945

  2,066

  2,662

  8.87

  9.11

  10.74

  18.18

  Gloucestershire

  1,567

  2,150

  0

  0

  21.86

  29.71

  0.00

  0.00

  Hampshire

  1,862

  2,215

  2,750

  2,720

  9.19

  10.93

  13.51

  13.51

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  264

  0

  n/a

  0.00

  2.78

  0.00

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  453

  1,734

  1,769

  n/a

  3.09

  11.86

  12.02

  n/a

  Humberside

  726

  759

  854

  0

  5.26

  5.45

  6.02

  0.00

  Isle of Wight

  94

  108

  124

  134

  5.42

  6.17

  6.97

  7.46

  Kent

  314

  151

  223

  n/a

  1.42

  0.71

  1.10

  n/a

  Lancashire

  4,374

  4,804

  5,193

  4,781

  20.70

  22.79

  24.36

  22.29

  Leicestershire

  1,267

  2,075

  2,275

  1,701

  9.31

  15.11

  16.35

  12.30

  Lincolnshire

  968

  148

  126

  110

  11.91

  1.90

  1.74

  1.65

  Norfolk

  1,200

  196

  0

  0

  12.00

  1.95

  0.00

  0.00

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Northamptonshire

  111

  128

  494

  313

  1.19

  1.40

  5.69

  3.66

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Nottinghamshire

  1,066

  2,295

  0

  0

  7.01

  14.96

  0.00

  0.00

  Oxfordshire

  1,389

  1,585

  1,586

  1,694

  18.92

  21.24

  20.84

  21.61

  Shropshire

  16

  19

  18

  13

  0.27

  0.32

  0.30

  0.22

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Staffordshire

  2,715

  3,214

  3,987

  3,814

  16.99

  19.83

  24.28

  23.38

  Suffolk

  14

  156

  0

  1,112

  0.16

  1.73

  0.00

  11.92

  Surrey

  0

  0

  2,791

  4,040

  0.00

  0.00

  25.68

  37.43

  Warwickshire

  922

  1,269

  1,428

  1,395

  13.02

  18.14

  20.60

  20.30

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  872

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  10.94

  0.00

  England total

  54,044

  69,564

  80,991

  n/a

  1 Provisional n/a—data not yet available.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost, for each year since 1989, to the Lancashire ratepayers of the enhancements and pensions paid to retired or retiring headmasters and teachers. [19054]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expenditure on premature retirement compensation and Crombie payments are recorded by Lancashire LEA for the years 1989–90 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. The figures include payments made to further and higher education lecturers and to teachers at sixth form colleges and grant-maintained schools who were granted premature retirement by the LEA. It is not possible to separate out these costs.

  £000

  1989–90

  3,377

  1990–91

  4,374

  1991–92

  4,804

  1992–93

  5,193

  1993–941

  4,781

  1 Provisional.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will estimate the number of hours which staff within her Department spend on issues relating to grant-maintained schools in whole-time equivalents. [19131]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some 77 full-time equivalent posts are concerned wholly or mainly with matters specific to 170
  grant-maintained schools. Many other staff in the Department have responsibilities that relate to both grant-maintained and local education authority schools.

  Departmental Expenditure Plans
  Mrs. Anne Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of editing, designing and printing her Department's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–98, Cm 2810. [19759]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 23 March,Official Report, column 175.

  Roberts Street Primary School
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education following the meeting held with the Under-Secretary of State and Dudley council and its hon. Members recently, if she has any good news for Roberts Street primary on how the technical barriers to use of the private finance initiative can be removed or other means accessed to enable this badly needed new school project to go ahead. [19145]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The local education authority is preparing a more detailed explanation of its proposal. We shall then be able to assess whether it meets the crucial criterion for the private finance initiative, mainly, how far there is a transfer of risk from the public sector to the private sector.

  School Spending
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 574, if she will list the same information on expenditure per pupil for Nottingham and Staffordshire, Surrey and Hertfordshire. [18785]

  Spending per pupil (1994–95 prices)

  Nottingham

  Staffordshire

  Surrey

  Hertfordshire

  Nursery/Primary £

  Secondary £

  Nursery/Primary £

  Secondary £

  Nursery/Primary £

  Secondary £

  Nursery/Primary £

  Secondary £

  1974–75

  1,127

  1,871

  1,197

  1,943

  1,310

  2,152

  1,405

  2,399

  1975–76

  n/a

  n/a

  1,204

  2,006

  1,303

  2,159

  1,289

  2,191

  1976–77

  1,173

  1,872

  1,223

  1,949

  1,266

  2,107

  1,293

  2,121

  1977–78

  1,105

  1,736

  1,167

  1,828

  1,150

  1,991

  1,259

  1,935

  1978–79

  1,097

  1,733

  1,180

  1,821

  1,186

  2,003

  1,240

  1,922

  1979–80

  1,073

  1,677

  1,195

  1,783

  1,193

  1,891

  1,317

  1,864

  1980–81

  1,070

  1,597

  1,186

  1,640

  1,128

  1,784

  1,179

  1,747

  1981–82

  1,174

  1,706

  1,253

  1,711

  1,133

  1,785

  1,205

  1,722

  1982–83

  1,268

  1,785

  1,279

  1,709

  1,154

  1,808

  1,196

  1,700

  1983–84

  1,329

  1,829

  1,324

  1,763

  1,164

  1,842

  1,204

  1,742

  1984–85

  1,311

  1,878

  1,288

  1,765

  1,141

  1,855

  1,200

  1,747

  1985–86

  1,322

  1,950

  1,281

  1,822

  1,175

  1,878

  1,229

  1,816

  1986–87

  1,432

  2,119

  1,344

  1,973

  1,281

  2,049

  1,336

  1,988

  1987–88

  1,483

  2,270

  1,418

  2,113

  1,347

  2,223

  1,404

  2,077

  1988–89

  1,520

  2,397

  1,442

  2,225

  1,457

  2,406

  1,540

  2,295

  1989–90

  1,573

  2,456

  1,451

  2,247

  1,476

  2,180

  1,560

  2,383

  1990–91

  1,615

  2,579

  1,464

  2,178

  1,557

  2,445

  1,554

  2,402

  1991–92

  1,772

  2,708

  1,527

  2,236

  1,596

  2,406

  1,620

  2,446

  1992–93

  1,655

  2,466

  1,538

  2,195

  1,658

  2,410

  1,699

  2,379

  1993–941

  1,686

  2,429

  1,565

  2,119

  1,735

  2,260

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Provisional. n/a—Data not available.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each agency and the central Department for which she is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19670]

  Mr. Forth
  Overtime worked in the Department for Education in the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, measured as full-time equivalent staff numbers, was 21, 31 and 32. For each of these financial years, the cost of overtime was £639,000, £694,000 and £750,000 respectively. The figures for 1994–95 are estimated.

  Data on sickness are not yet available for 1994. In 1992, the amount of time lost through sickness was 20,368 days, and in 1993 20,966 days. The monetary cost of these absences is not available.

  Grant for Education Support and Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average GEST funding for(a) each local education authority school and (b) each grant-maintained school; and what is the accounting procedure for such funding by the local education authorities and Funding Agency for Schools. [19042]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For the financial year 1995–96, GEST funding averages £11,100 per local education authority maintained primary, secondary and special school. Grant is payable in instalments, with, if necessary
  172
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows expenditure by Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Surrey and Hertfordshire local education authorities on pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on secondary pupils, from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  a final adjustment for the financial year on receipt by the Department of an audit certificate confirming actual expenditure.

  For grant-maintained schools, similar activities are supported by special purpose grant—development. The calculation and payment of special purpose grants are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools and I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people are employed at the Funding Agency for Schools; and what were the staff costs in the last financial year. [19130]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  School Meals
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a table showing the total expenditure on school meal service on a per capita basis in cash and real terms for each year since 1970 until the most recent date available. [19376]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the cost per pupil on expenditure on the school meal service in cash and real terms from 1976–77 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. Figures from
  173
  1970 to 1975–76 are not readily available and can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Net Expenditure on School Meal Service

  Unit cost cash terms £

  Unit cost real terms (1994–95 prices) £

  1976–77

  47

  172

  1977–78

  45

  146

  1978–79

  48

  142

  1979–80

  54

  134

  1980–81

  49

  103

  1981–82

  51

  98

  1982–83

  54

  97

  1983–84

  58

  99

  1984–85

  60

  98

  1985–86

  61

  95

  1986–87

  65

  97

  1987–88

  64

  92

  1988–89

  56

  75

  1989–90

  51

  65

  1990–91

  53

  62

  School catering service in cash terms

  £000

  Nottingham

  Staffordshire

  Surrey

  Hertfordshire

  Gross Expenditure

  Gross Income

  Gross Expenditure

  Gross Income

  Gross Expenditure

  Gross Income

  Gross Expenditure

  Gross Income

  1982–83

  14,589

  4,881

  11,726

  5,162

  10,652

  4,992

  14,431

  6,075

  1983–84

  15,823

  5,086

  12,234

  5,739

  10,590

  5,080

  15,025

  6,204

  1984–85

  15,075

  4,127

  11,241

  5,178

  10,536

  5,550

  14,103

  6,081

  1985–86

  14,443

  3,095

  10,671

  4,518

  11,060

  5,612

  14,524

  7,702

  1986–87

  16,308

  4,922

  12,431

  5,711

  11,450

  6,177

  15,879

  8,707

  1987–88

  18,991

  6,414

  13,412

  6,619

  12,437

  6,442

  15,486

  9,225

  1988–89

  19,171

  7,015

  13,330

  7,021

  10,295

  7,506

  15,049

  9,958

  1989–90

  18,296

  7,563

  11,710

  6,596

  10,444

  7,643

  16,433

  10,895

  1990–91

  14,410

  6,938

  12,422

  7,750

  8,881

  5,256

  16,505

  10,555

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  14,764

  8,230

  9,890

  5,490

  18,556

  9,847

  1992–93

  19,059

  7,560

  14,803

  8,944

  13,850

  8,155

  18,214

  9,785

  1993–941

  18,654

  7,678

  16,200

  8,674

  11,562

  n/a

  n/a

  4,110

  1Provisional n/a—Data not available.

  Schools Budget
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 577, if she will list the same information on amounts held back of education budgets in 1994–95 for each county local education authority. [18786]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 17 October 1994,Official Report, column 28.

  Schools Management, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what reductions have been made by North Yorkshire county council to its central administration since the advent of local management of schools. [18829]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentage of North Yorkshire county council's general schools budget devoted to management and administration in connection with schools since 1991–92 has been as follows:

  1991–92: 1.92 per cent.

  1992–93: 2.15 per cent.

  174

  Net Expenditure on School Meal Service

  Unit cost cash terms £

  Unit cost real terms (1994–95 prices) £

  1991–92

  53

  58

  1992–93

  63

  66

  1993–941

  62

  63

  1 Provisional.

  School Catering
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 692, if she will list the same information on school catering for Nottingham and Staffordshire, Surrey and Hertfordshire. [18787]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Surrey and Hertfordshire local education authorities' total expenditure on, and income from, the school catering service from 1982–83 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  1993–94: 1.90 per cent.

  1994–95: 1.73 per cent.

  1995–96: 1.67 per cent.

  To maintain comparability, all these figures exclude expenditure on special schools, which only became subject to local management from 1994–95.

PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [20166]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's fifth annual report for 1994 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annexe to that report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing
  175
  the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have exercised their warranty powers in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [19946]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Nolan's annual report for 1994 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annnexe to that report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in assisting the tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the powers under the Act are exercised with care and with a strong sense of duty.

  Teachers and Administrators
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 112, concerning the ratio of teachers to other manual and non-manual staff employed by education authorities, if he has anything to add to his oral statement of the same day, Official Report, column 140, concerning the ratio of, teachers to administrators in their authorities. [19779]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: No. I made the position clear in my oral statement of 21 March, Official Report, column 141, and my written answer of the same day, Official Report, column 112.

  Conservative Party Health Group
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on what basis and on whose authority Conservative central office has dispatched a summons and agenda paper for a Conservative party meeting to be held at the headquarters of the Department of Health in Richmond terrace in April. [18676]

  (2) if the Cabinet Secretary approved the conducting of Conservative party health group meetings at the headquarters of the Department of Health in Richmond terrace in 1994–95; [18678]

  (3) how many Conservative party health group meetings, for which agenda and summonses were dispatched on Conservative central office notepaper, were held at the Department of Health in Richmond terrace in 1994–95. [18679]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: One Conservative party health group meeting was held during 1994–95 at Richmond house. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health held another meeting on 4 April. These meetings did not incur additional cost to the taxpayer. No civil servant, apart from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's special adviser, was involved in preparing for or servicing these meetings. Approval was not required.

  Official Box, House of Commons
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what instructions and advice is given to special advisers who 176
  occupy the civil service box inside the Chamber of the House as to their conduct, behaviour and impartiality during Question Time, statements and debates; and if he has any plans to amend or review this advice; and if he will make a statement. [18979]

  The Prime Minister
  Attendance in the Official Box is by permission of Madam Speaker who has laid down clear rules on officials' behaviour. These require officials to conduct themselves discreetly at all times. I expect these rules to be scrupulously observed.

  Mr. Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current position regarding representations made on behalf of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali who is in prison in Azad Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [19058]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: We continue to raise our concerns over the delays in the hearings facing Ghazanfer Ali. We understand that the hearings continue to be adjourned.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 453, regarding the concrete evidence on Lockerbie if he will (a) name the relevant authorities and (b) make a statement on the result of his approaches to the United States embassy on the issues of alleged forgery of the telex to which the question refers. [18430]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: I have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to look into the matters raised by the hon. Member. It has consulted the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary as the prosecuting and investigating authorities in this case, our security and intelligence services and the United States authorities. The consultations with the United States embassy are intended to check the authenticity of the document in question, and are still continuing.

DEFENCE

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation his Department had with English Heritage prior to construction of the new stone roads in the Salisbury plain training area; and if he will make a statement. [18853]

  Mr. Soames
  Track construction on Salisbury plain training area is subject to the normal planning procedures and the planning authority would formally consult English Heritage where appropriate. In addition, English Heritage is one of several bodies represented on the Salisbury plain training area environmental steering group which oversees development and environmental management of the training area.

  "Old Ditch"
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the prehistoric earthwork known as the "Old Ditch" on Tilshead down was destroyed; and who authorised its removal. [18852]
  177
  Mr. Soames
  The surface of the scheduled ancient monument known as the "Old Ditch" on Tilshead down was regrettably scraped during essential engineering works between 13 and 17 March. Investigation into the incident is being carried out, but initial indications are that the damage to the earthwork was the result of an accident.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the report by the defence land agent on the destruction of the prehistoric monument known as the "Old Ditch" on Tilshead down; and if he will make a statement. [18854]

  Mr. Soames
  The defence land agent is at present carrying out an investigation into the incident. Once the investigation is complete, a summary of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was

  Child Support Agency (established April 1993)

  £

  1991–2

  1992–3

  1993–4

  1994–5

  1995–6

  (a) television advertising

  1

  1

  302,185

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  1

  1

  276,420

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising

  1

  33,2404

  269,259

  —

  —

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  1

  1

  842,357

  1.9 million

  —

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)5

  33,2404

  1.7 million

  1.9 million

  3.05 million3

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment advertising

  100 per cent.

  2

  2

  2

  Notes:

  1 Publicity budget held centrally by DSS.

  2 A breakdown of recruitment advertising is not available for 1993–94 and 1994–95. CSA has spent £27,265 on recruitment press advertising from 1993 to date.

  3 Total budget for 1995–96.

  4 Recruitment advertising budget was held by CSA and was done through newspapers.

  1Totals rounded, where appropriate, to nearest £100,000. Totals may therefore not sum.

  War pensions Agency (established April 1994)

  £

  1991/92

  1992/93

  1993/94

  1994/95

  1995/96

  (a) television advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising

  1

  1

  1

  1,814

  —

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  1

  1

  1

  21,000

  —

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)

  22,814

  225,000

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment advertising

  —

  Notes:

  1 Budget held centrally by DSS.

  2 Estimate only, no breakdown available.

  Contributions Agency (established April 1991)

  £

  1991–2

  1992–3

  1993–4

  1994–5

  1995–6

  (a) television advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising

  1

  1

  1

  30,192

  —

  178
  spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since 1979–80; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17612]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Benefits Agency (established April 1992)

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  21995–96

  (a) television advertising

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising and

  1

  8.1

  7.7

  7.0

  —

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)

  8.1

  7.7

  7.0

  6.8

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment advertising

  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost

  Notes:

  1 Budget held centrally by DSS.

  2 Breakdown not available for 1995–96. Total is estimated. Expenditure rounded to nearest £100,000.

  179

  Contributions Agency (established April 1991)

  £

  1991–2

  1992–3

  1993–4

  1994–5

  1995–6

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  1

  1

  1

  34.1 million

  24 million

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)

  —

  —

  —

  4.2 million

  —

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment advertising

  —

  —

  —

  0.14 per cent.

  —

  Notes:

  1 Budget held centrally by DSS.

  2 Estimated publicity budget.

  3 Totals rounded, where appropriate, to nearest £100,000. Totals may therefore not sum.

  Information Technology Services Agency (established April 1990)

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) television advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising

  52,000

  103,000

  36,000

  1,000

  5,000

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)

  52,000

  103,000

  36,000

  1,000

  5,000

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment advertising

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Resettlement Agency (established May 1989)

  No such expenditure.

  Non-departmental Bodies Central adjudication services (established April 1984)

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Non-departmental bodies

  (a) television advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  1

  1

  1

  400

  —

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)

  —

  —

  —

  400

  —

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment
  advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1Expenditure prior to 1994–95 has not been identified, and none is anticipated for 1995–96.

  Independent Tribunal Service (established April 1984) includes Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeal Tribunals, Disability Appeal Tribunals, Child Support Tribunals and Vaccine Damage Tribunals

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) television advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (b) radio advertising

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (c) newspaper advertising

  1

  1

  1

  6,999

  4,500

  (d) other promotion materials and activities

  1

  1

  1

  11,000

  —

  (e) the totals of (a) to (d)

  —

  —

  —

  17,999

  4,500

  (f) proportion spent on recruitment advertising

  —

  —

  —

  38.89 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Notes:

  1 Expenditure prior to 1994–95 has not been identified, and none is anticipated for 1995–96.

  The following non-departmental public bodies are also the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but have not recorded any expenditure in the categories requested because budgets were centrally held.

  Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  War Pension Committees

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  Occupational Pensions Board

  Poverty
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Liverpool are living on or below the poverty line. [18945]
  180
  Mr. Burt
  No Government of any political persuasion Poverty have ever accepted that it is possible to provide a meaningful definition of poverty.

  Statistics on patterns of household disposable income, for the United Kingdom as a whole, are provided in

  181
  "Households below Average Income 1979–1991/92" published in July 1994, a copy of which is in the Library. Information is not available on a regional basis.

  Maintenance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total monetary value of maintenance arranged or collected by his Department's liable relatives unit in the year from 6 April 1991 to 5 April 1992. [18821]

  Mr. Burt
  Benefit savings of £283.9 million were achieved in the 1991–92 financial year as a result of liable relative action by the Benefits Agency. It is not possible to break this down to show amounts arranged or collected.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of cases taken on by the Child Support Agency involve absent parents and parents with care who have separated since 5 April 1993. [18818]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not collected.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the number of people in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale currently receiving invalidity benefit who will not qualify for the new incapacity benefit. [19395]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available. Estimates are not broken down into local areas or regions.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19834]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available, but as a matter of policy the Department has deliberately phased out the use of tropical hardwoods including mahogany.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many members of training and enterprise councils representing business and industry have been nominated by co-operative business; what are the criteria for business and industry nominations; and what steps are taken to ensure that nominations are received from co-operative business. [19069]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not hold information on the numbers of training and enterprise council board members from co-operative business. As private companies, TECs are responsible for the selection of their own board members. The Government contract with TECs requires that two thirds of the board should be private sector employers who are chairmen, chief executives or top operational managers at local level of a182
  company. Private sector directors should broadly reflect the mix of commerce and industry in the TEC area.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the jobseeker's allowance pilot was set up in Guildford in Surrey; and whether there has been a reduction in the unemployment register for Guildford since the pilot commenced. [19136]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The pilot currently running in the Employment Service's Guildford district is not a jobseeker's allowance pilot. It is part of a project aimed at improving and making more efficient ES's existing job-broking and advisory activities, in particular through developing better information technology support. The pilot has been developing and testing a prototype IT system, to deal with functions such as signing, vacancy taking, vacancy search, maintaining client records, carrying out in-work benefit calculations and managing diaries and case loads. The prototype system began operation in four of the five offices in the Guildford district in May 1994.

  Between June and December 1994, average unemployment fell by 23 per cent. in the Guildford district.

  South London TEC
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the figure for expected youth training guarantees starts in 1995–96 in the expanded South London TEC area. [19292]

  Mr. Paice
  The figure for youth training guarantee starts for the SOLOTEC area of Bexley, Bromley, Croydon and Sutton for the 1995–96 contract year is 2,250. A further 1,152 guarantee starts are expected for Greenwich and Lewisham subject to further negotiation between SOLOTEC and the government office for London.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19841]

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

TREASURY

  European Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government are taking to progress the European Co-operative Statute with a view to reaching a common position during the French presidency in the first half of the current year; and if he will make a statement. [19451]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are negotiating constructively on the proposal for a European Co-operative Statute. A number of important issues need
  183
  to be resolved, including the legal base, protection of creditors on transfer of registered office and the question of compulsory employee participation. Discussions on the statute are continuing in the Council working group in Brussels.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the objectives of the forthcoming general review, under the deregulation initiative, of the industrial and provident societies legislation as outlined in the recent report of the Chief Registrar; what steps are being taken to consult interested societies and their members; if he will produce a timetable for the review; and if he will make a statement. [19449]

  Mr. Nelson
  A consultation document on proposed changes to industrial and provident societies legislation was published on 5 April,Official Report, column 1162. Copies have been sent to promoting bodies, professional accounting bodies, solicitors' firms, housing associations and co-operatives. Proposals include aligning the audit requirements for industrial and provident societies with those of companies and changing the timetable for submitting returns. The closing date for response is 12 May. Subject to the responses, the Government hope to put draft orders to the Deregulation Committee as soon as possible thereafter.

  Schools (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if schools will be able to claim tax relief on money raised by parents. [18900]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Schools are generally exempt from tax on moneys they receive from fund-raising by parents.

  Exchange Rates
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government are required by the Maastricht treaty to seek to arrange their economic policies with a view to seek to engage sterling in a stable exchange rate with other Euro-currencies. [18154]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: There is no provision in the treaty which requires the United Kingdom to seek to maintain a stable exchange rate.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by category of the number of people who have(a) been brought into paying income tax since 1992–93 and (b) will come into paying income tax in 1995–96 as compared with 1994–95. [17428]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: Available information is given in the table. The increase in taxpayer numbers is largely due to economic growth. In addition, the number of people in work is increasing—the UK work force in employment had increases of 174,000 between December 1993 and December 1994. If the 1978–79 income tax regime had been indexed to 1995–96, there would be 1 million more taxpayers in 1995–96.
  184

  Number of taxpayers by status (thousands)

  Single people

  Husbands

  Wives

  Total

  1992–93

  10,460

  9,080

  5,840

  25,400

  1994–951

  10,700

  9,100

  5,900

  25,700

  1995–961

  10,800

  9,400

  6,000

  26,200

  1 Provisional.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19364]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: My Department has not repealed any regulations this year. The following regulations were introduced in the first three months of the year:

  The Natural History Museum (Authorised Repositories) Order 1995

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995.

  Neither of these introduced new regulatory requirements which had costs for business.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19350]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: My Department is committed to undertaking compliance cost assessments for all measures which impose costs on business. No such measures have been introduced this year and therefore no assessments have been prepared.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Technology Group
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the salaries of the directors of the British Technology Group currently; and what they were in 1991 before privatisation; [19251]

  (2) what resources the British Technology Group has placed in the university sector (a) since 1991 and (b) in 1991 prior to privatisation. [19249]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This is a matter for the board.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assets held by the British Technology Group have been sold since it was privatised. [19250]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Under the terms of a special share in British Technology Group, the Secretary of State's approval is required for any disposal of the whole or a material part of the assets of the group. No such disposal has taken place. Any other asset sales are a matter for the board.

  Companies House
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set Companies House executive agency for 1995–96. [19994]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have set Companies House executive agency the following targets for 1995–96:

  to make all statutory documents available for public inspection within a maximum of five working days of receipt in Companies House

  to achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95 per cent. and for annual returns submitted of 93 per cent.

  to ensure that a minimum of 90 per cent. of fiche provided to customers are error free and that the percentage of error free work in current processing is at least 97 per cent.

  to reduce real unit costs by 10 per cent. compared with the outturn in 1993–94—an average reduction of 5 per cent. per annum

  to achieve a 6 per cent. average annual rate of return based on operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets employed at current values

  to answer 90 per cent. of incoming telephone calls within six rings—20 seconds

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of the agency to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  European Solar Prize
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support or endorsement his Department is giving to the 1995 European solar prize, judged and administered by EUROSOLAR International, and to the national UK solar prize, judged and administered by EUROSOLAR UK. [18895]

  Mr. Page
  The Department welcomes the joint European Commission—EUROSOLAR initiative in setting up the European solar prize, and the associated national UK solar prize. The Department's new and renewable energy programme is assisting with the publicity of this activity.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Government expenditure on research development, demonstration and dissemination of renewable energy technologies, as defined in energy paper No. 62, page 6, figure 2, for each year since 1990, together with projected expenditure for each year until 1997. [18926]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Government expenditure on research, development, demonstration and dissemination of renewable energy technologies since 1990 is shown.

  £ million

  Programme

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Wind

  4.5

  6.7

  8.7

  7.3

  2.7

  Wave

  0.4

  0.5

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  Geothermal Aquifers

  0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0

  Geothermal Hot Dry Rocks

  2.6

  1.6

  1.1

  1

  0.2

  Solar

  2.1

  2.4

  2.3

  2.4

  2.1

  Biofuels

  1.8

  2.5

  3.2

  3.4

  3.6

  Tidal

  1.9

  1.9

  1.7

  0.6

  0.2

  Hydro

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  186

  £ million

  Programme

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Technology Transfer

  2.9

  3.3

  2.6

  4.2

  4.2

  ETSU R and D Management

  3.8

  4.6

  4

  4.2

  4.6

  Fuel Cells

  n/a

  0.2

  0.4

  0.8

  0.9

  Strategic Studies

  0.7

  0.9

  1

  0.8

  0.4

  New and Renewables Total Gross1

  20.8

  24.8

  25.6

  25.2

  19.2

  1 Minor difference due to rounding.

  The Government's expenditure plans for renewable and novel sources of energy for 1995–96 to 1997–98 are shown below.

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  New and Renewables

  18

  15.5

  15.5

  Raytheon Plant
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has written to the Raytheon company to ask it to reconsider its decision to close its Broughton plant. [19455]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 April 1995,Official Report, column 1187.

  International Co-operative Alliance
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to acknowledge the centenary celebrations of the international co-operative movement; and if he or one of his Ministers will be taking part in the centenary congress of the International Co-operative Alliance to be held in Manchester in September 1995. [19450]

  Mr. Heseltine
  No DTI Ministers will attend this event, but the Department expects to be represented at official level. I take this opportunity to wish the alliance a successful centennial congress.

  Coal Mining Contractors Pension Scheme
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many members of the coal mining contractors pension scheme fund who have pensions retained in the scheme are not contactable because the coal mining contractors pension scheme fund does not have accurate information on their addresses; [18831]

  (2) what is the expected amount of the coal mining contractors pension scheme fund to be transferred to the insurance company to be selected by the trustees; [18833]

  (3) what is the current total sum in the coal mining contractors pension scheme fund; [18832]

  (4) how many members of the coal mining contractors pension scheme are currently in receipt of a pension; and how many are not yet in receipt of a pension but who will qualify for a pension once they attain the age of 65 years. [18830]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for the trustees of the coal mining contractors pension scheme who may be contacted through CMT Pension Trustee Services Ltd., 1 Hussar court, Hillsborough barracks, Sheffield, S6 2LW.

  Energy Consumption
  Mrs. Diana Maddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the total amount and (b) the total cost of (i) electricity, (ii) gas, (iii) coal, (iv) coke and breeze, (v) solid fuels, (vi) petroleum and (vii) solar and geothermal energy consumed by domestic users in each English county during the last year for which figures are available. [19890]

  Mr. Eggar
  I regret that this information is not available.

  AEA Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current actuarial value of the forecast total liabilities of the pension rights of the employees at AEA Technology; and if he will make a statement. [19156]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Employees of AEA Technology are employed by the UKAEA. Detailed data are available only for the whole of the UKAEA. However, the value of the liabilities in respect of AEA Technology is estimated to lie in the range of £120 million to £160 million.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (a)

  Expenditure £K

  Hours

  Expenditure £K

  Hours

  Expenditure £K

  Hours

  Centre DTI

  1,678

  145,910

  1,612

  135,480

  1,539

  124,970

  DTI agencies:

  Insolvency Service

  323

  34,450

  266

  18,940

  110

  7,230

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  6

  390

  10

  768

  8

  500

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  58

  7,100

  42

  4,200

  42

  3,900

  National Engineering Laboratory

  67

  4,882

  58

  4,329

  71

  5,409

  National Physical Laboratory

  51

  (b)

  81

  (b)

  82

  (b)

  Radiocommunications

  359

  17,071

  414

  18,047

  394

  13,523

  Companies House

  354

  45,674

  380

  52,829

  316

  41,817

  Patent Office

  185

  26,923

  223

  27,005

  264

  30,014

  Total

  3,081

  282,400

  3,086

  261,598

  2,826

  227,363

  Notes:

  (a) The entries for 1994–95 are provisional figures.

  (b) Figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The total number of days lost by the centre of the department through sickness for calendar years 1992 and 1993 were 101,835.8 and 107,796.5 respectively. The Department could provide information on the monetary equivalents of these figures only at disproportionate cost. Data are not yet available for 1994.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on the stabilisation of the existing shelter and damaged remains of reactor 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, commissioned by the European Commission under the EU Tacis contract WW92.04/01.01/B029. [19319]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The report in question is the property of the European Commission and is commercially confidential. However, the executive summary has been made available to the European Parliament, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) of 2 March,Official Report, column 716, if he will make a statement on how the EU criteria for arms exports were taken into consideration in the issuing of a licence to Alvis for the export of armoured vehicles to Indonesia. [19341]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have nothing further to add to my statement of 2 March 1995.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each agency and the central department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19675]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Information concerning the paid overtime for the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 is given in the table.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications for present waste management strategy at Sellafield of the agreement between British Nuclear Fuels and Nuclear Electric on 31 March on reprocessing and spent fuel management services; and what meetings Ministers or officials of his Department had with each company respectively, in regard to the matters set out in the agreement. [19321]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The agreement between British Nuclear Fuels plc and Nuclear Electric plc is a commercial matter for the companies involved. Subject to meeting the appropriate regulatory requirements, BNFL is responsible for waste management strategy at Sellafield as operators of the site. I understand from the company that the agreement has no implications for this strategy. Ministers and officials meet representatives from the two companies from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 410, if he will list the 1,000 regulations which have been targeted by Departments to remove unnecessary burdens to business; and if he will make a statement as to the progress proposed on each, and the timescale for so doing. [18090]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Of the 1,000 regulations, about 430 are concerned with transportation matters including about 25 aviation, about 250 maritime and about 150 road transport regulations; about 130 concern the Chancellor's Departments including amendments to the regulatory structure in implementing the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive; regulatory changes arising from self-assessment of personal taxation and simplification of VAT accounting; about 110 are concerned with health and safety including legislation under the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974; about 100 concern trade and industry, including consumer protection, weights and measures, patents, insurance regulation, company and competition law; about 80 relate to local government, housing, environmental controls, and planning and building regulations; about 75 deal with agricultural, fisheries and food matters; about 50 relate to health matters including human medicines and food safety legislation; about 30 concern matters dealt with by the' Home Office including legislation on gambling, liquor licensing, street trading, public entertainment licensing and game licensing; the remainder are from other departments with regulatory responsibilities.

  Considerable progress has already been made in implementing these changes. The timetable for the remainder varies because of the need for consultation with those affected by the regulations, but we expect about half of the 1,000 to have been dealt with by the end of the year.

  Deregulatory action is also being undertaken in a number of other important areas, including ensuring that new regulations are introduced only if they are needed and have the minimum possible compliance costs; making enforcement procedures more business friendly; and promoting a deregulatory approach in the European Union.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19369]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: In the first three months of 1995, there were three simple repeals of regulation. In the same period, 21 were introduced, not including commencement orders, Orders in Council and instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure, such as translations into Welsh, of which:
  190

  nine repealed earlier instruments or substituted a more favourable regime for business

  two implemented EU obligations, including measures to facilitate trade between member states

  four facilitated privatisations and competition

  four updated fees and charges or related to local legislation

  the remaining two, while not fitting any of the categories above, had no adverse impact on business

  Very few introduced new regulatory requirements which had costs for business.

  Other deregulatory activity by my Department is described in the answer to another question given to my hon. Friend today.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19354]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding
  answer 18 April 1995]: The Government have agreed that a compliance cost assessment should be prepared in the following circumstances:

  in support of papers for collective discussion that deal with proposals which may have an impact on business;

  when preparing statistical surveys which will involve business;

  alongside draft primary, secondary and EC legislation having an impact on business when it is presented to Parliament;

  as part of the advice to Ministers on the line to be taken on a private Member's Bill which affects business;

  All CCAs accompanying draft Government legislation are published. My Department issued four of these in the first three months of this year, copies of which are in the Library. A list of all CCAs issued between November 1993 and June 1994 was published in December 1994—Cm 2719. Another Command Paper covering the period July to December 1994 will be published shortly.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19849]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In the last five years the only item purchased for my Department's London headquarters which contains mahogany was a veneer meeting table bought in 1990 at a cost of around £400. Comparable information is not available for the DTI's agencies.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 886, in what circumstances further contributions will be made from the public purse to meet cost escalations for the Pergau dam. [19692]

  Mr. Heseltine
  No approach has been made to date which will entail additional contributions from the public purse to meet cost escalations for the Pergau dam.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19363]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Thirty eight instruments were revoked in the months January, February and March 1995. Twenty-eight statutory instruments were made during that period, not including commencement orders. Orders in Council and instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure. Of these, over half revoked earlier instruments or substituted a more favourable regime for business.

  Firearms
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) name, (b) occupation or former occupation, (c) place of residence and (d) annual honorarium, allowance and/or payment of each member of the Advisory Committee on Firearms; and if he will make a statement; [19017]

  (2) what recommendations he has received from the Advisory Committee on Firearms in relation to the certification of shotguns in the past five years; and if he, will make a statement. [19019]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Firearms Consultative Committee is a statutory body set up under section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Members appointed to the committee are chosen from those who appear to the Home Secretary to have knowledge and experience of either the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in firearms; or weapon technology; or the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Acts in Great Britain.

  A list of committee members with biographies relevant to their appointment is contained in the committee's fifth annual report, a copy of which is in the Library. Since the report was published, Lord Shrewsbury has assumed chairmanship of the committee and Sir Malcolm Guthrie has resigned. Communications to committee members should be addressed to the Secretary, Firearms Consultative Committee, 50 Queen Anne's gate, London SW1H 9AT. Members receive no allowance, but travelling expenses are reimbursed.

  The recommendations received from the Firearms Consultative Committee in the past five years including those relating to the certification of shotguns are listed in the committee's fifth annual report.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the differences between the current legislation governing(a) firearms and (b) shotgun certificates; and if he will make a statement; [19027]

  (2) what plans he has to bring the legislation governing shotgun certificates into line with the legislation governing firearm certificates; and if he will make a statement. [19026]

  Mr. Maclean
  Before issuing either a firearm or shotgun certificate, a chief officer of police must consider whether the applicant is, by virtue of a previous conviction, prohibited from possessing firearms and 192
  whether the applicant can be permitted to possess firearms without danger to the public safety or to the peace. In addition, a firearm certificate will be refused where the chief officer is not satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for possessing the firearm(s) in question. A shotgun certificate will be refused where the chief officer is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing shotguns. The holder of a firearm certificate must obtain further authority from the police for each additional firearm he wishes to keep. The holder of a shotgun certificate may acquire additional shotguns subject to notifying the police of each acquisition.

  There are no plans to bring the legislation governing the issue of shotgun certificates in Great Britain completely into line with that for firearm certificates, but the Firearms Consultative Committee in its fifth annual report recommended that a working group be set up to consider the issue of licensing as a whole. The merits of a single certificate to cover both firearms and shotguns will be considered.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 853, if Wood Green high road's bid was among those 289 bids for CCTV assessed by the panel as being of good or very good quality. [18800]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Yes.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 853, how many of the 289 CCTV bids assessed as being of good or very good quality were from London. [19374]

  Mr. Maclean
  Thirty-three.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Claims
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of claimants under(a) the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and (b) the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority lived in London in the last year for which figures are available. [19392]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Definitive records are not available centrally. However, such records as are available suggest that in the year 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 about 12.5 per cent. of the claims registered by CICA had a London address. The only figures available in respect of CICB relate to the period December 1993 to March 1994, when about 8 per cent. of the claims registered appear to have had a London address.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to private sector investment in the operation and maintenance of the police national computer. [19153]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton
  193
  (Mr. Cohen) on 8 March 1995, Official Report, columns 185–86.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers about the cost of police investigations into alleged and proven miscarriages of justice in the last five years. [19040]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. However, we are due shortly to discuss with the association the results of a survey of the costs of a small sample of recently completed

  Crimes1 recorded by the police in OECD countries2

  1979

  1987

  1993

  Number

  Index

  Number

  Index

  Number

  Index

  Australia3

  642,066

  100

  1,070,367

  167

  41,273,948

  198

  Austria

  330,132

  100

  391,291

  119

  493,786

  150

  Belgium

  —

  —

  293,631

  —

  388,150

  —

  Canada

  1,855,271

  100

  2,368,956

  128

  2,736,096

  147

  Denmark

  355,054

  100

  524,323

  148

  546,894

  154

  Finland

  192,979

  100

  317,290

  164

  385,985

  200

  France

  2,330,566

  100

  3,170,970

  136

  3,881,894

  167

  Germany

  3,533,802

  100

  4,444,108

  126

  56,750,613

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  303,182

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  64,057

  100

  85,358

  133

  98,979

  155

  Italy

  1,103,536

  100

  1,867,035

  169

  2,253,303

  204

  Japan

  1,289,405

  100

  1,577,954

  122

  1,801,150

  140

  Netherlands

  615,700

  100

  1,042,120

  169

  1,279,460

  208

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  406,627

  —

  502,460

  —

  Norway

  109,991

  100

  198,877

  181

  248,001

  225

  Portugal

  —

  —

  251,588

  —

  339,662

  —

  Sweden

  698,171

  100

  949,367

  136

  1,031,015

  148

  United Kingdom

  England/Wales

  2,536,700

  100

  3,892,200

  153

  5,526,300

  218

  Northern Ireland

  54,262

  100

  63,860

  118

  66,228

  122

  Scotland

  346,680

  100

  481,230

  139

  543,013

  157

  USA6

  12,249,500

  100

  13,508,700

  110

  14,141,000

  115

  1 More serious offences. In many countries defined as against the "penal code" or "criminal code" and excludes less serious crimes—misdemeanours. The range of offences covered differ between each country and some countries acknowledge double counting in the collection of such statistics. Comparisons based upon absolute figures are therefore misleading. For certain countries, it is additionally known that in the period 1979–87, improvements in data quality and changes in the penal code have affected these statistics.

  2 No information available for Iceland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Spain, Turkey and Switzerland.

  3 Data for financial years 1979 = 1979–80 etc.

  4 1992 figures.

  5 Includes East Germany in 1993.

  6 FBI uniform crime index covering murder and non-negligent manslaughter, manslaughter by negligence, forcible rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny—theft of motor vehicles, theft and arson, but excludes offences such as drug, which are included in other countries' figures.

  Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) name, (b) occupation or former occupation, (c) place of residence and (d) annual honorarium, allowance or payment of each member of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs; and if he will make a statement. [19016]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and their occupations are as follows:

  Mrs. J. Barlow, Projects Manager, Aberlour Childcare Trust, Stirling.

  Mr. R. Bartle, Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, London.

  Dr. W. Clee, General Medical Practitioner, Cardiff.

  Dr. M. Donmall, Unit Director, University of Manchester Drug Research Unit.

  194
  investigations, based on information supplied to the Home Office by the police forces concerned.

  Crime Rates
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each OECD country for which data are available the total of recorded crime in 1979, 1987 and 1993, with an index for each country where 1979=100. [18898]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The readily available information on crimes recorded by the police in OECD countries is provided in the table:

  Dr. A. Duxbury, Professor of Oral Medicine, University of Manchester.

  Professor G. Edwards, Chairman, National Addiction Centre, London.

  Mrs. J. Faugier, Research Fellow, North West Regional Health Authority, Warrington.

  Professor D. Grahame-Smith, (Chairman), Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Oxford University.

  Dr. J. Greenwood, Consultant Psychiatrist, Community Drug Problem Service, Edinburgh.

  Ms K. Hager, Director, Exeter Drugs Project.

  Mr. P. Hayes, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, South East London Probation Service.

  Mr. K. Hellawell, Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Police.

  Ms L. Hewitt, Project Manager, the Stockwell Project, London.

  Mr. M. Hindson, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Greater Manchester Probation Service.

  195

  Professor R. Jones, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liverpool.

  Ms R. Joyce, County Advisor for Health Education, Cambridge.

  Mr. J. Kay, Managing Director, Healthwise Ltd. Liverpool.

  Dr. M. Keen, Consultant Psychiatrist, Adfer Addiction Unit, Cardiff.

  Dr. D. Kennedy, Consultant Physician, Glasgow.

  Professor M. Lader, Professor of Psychopharmacology, University of London.

  Mr. A. Massam, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, London.

  Mr. M. Narayn Singh, Public Education Officer, Manchester City Council.

  Professor W. 011is, Professor of Organic Chemistry, University of Birmingham.

  Mr. K. Patel, Deputy Director, the Bridge Project, Bradford.

  Dr. D. Paterson, Consultant Psychiatrist, Omagh.

  Mr. A. Ramsay, Regional Advisor in Health Education, Glasgow.

  Dr. S. Ruben, Consultant Psychiatrist, Liverpool Drug Dependency Clinic.

  Viscountess Runciman, (independent), London.

  Mr. I. Sherwood, Senior Speciality Nurse, Avon Drug Problem Team, Bristol.

  Professor G. Stimson, Director, Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, London.

  Professor J. Strang, Consultant Psychiatrist, Addiction Research Unit, London.

  Dr. D. Temple, Director of Post-Graduate Pharmaceutical Studies for the NHS in Wales, the University of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. D. Turner, Former Director, Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, London.

  Mr. E. Unsworth, Deputy Director, Social Services, Cambridgeshire County Council.

  Mr. P. Walker, Headteacher, the Abbey School, Faversham.

  Dr. T. Waller, General Medical Practitioner, Ipswich.

  Official records of members' places of residence are not kept but, so far as we know, most live in the locality in which they work. They serve in a voluntary capacity and receive only reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses.

  Drugs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those mines where the British Coal occupational health service currently maintains responsibility for the holding of pethidine; in which mines pethidine is currently(a) held and (b) not held; and if he will make a statement. [19389]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Mines are covered by a group licence issued by the Home Office to enable them to hold certain controlled drugs, including pethidine, on site for emergency use.

  The British Coal Corporation's occupational health service currently maintains responsibility for the supply of pethidine to the following mines:

  Annesley/Bentinck

  Asfordby

  Bilsthorpe

  Calverton

  Clipstone

  Daw Mill

  Ellington

  Francis

  Gascoigne Wood

  Hatfield

  196

  Harworth

  Kellingley

  Longannet

  Maltby

  Markham

  North Selby

  Point of Ayr

  Prince of Wales

  Riccall

  Rossington

  Stillingfleet

  Thoresby

  Tower

  Welbeck

  Wistow

  Whitemoor

  At present, all these mines hold pethidine on site.

  British Coal has no responsibility for occupational health services at the following mines:

  Betwys

  Coventry

  Monktonhall

  Silverdale

  Trentham/Hem Health

  None of these mines currently holds pethidine on site.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the legislative differences relating to drugs which are classified as schedule 3 as compared with those classified as schedule 4; and if he will make a statement. [19015]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The differences between the controls on drugs in schedule 3 and schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 are as follows:

  possession of schedule 3 drugs requires authority. Possession of schedule 4 drugs does not require authority when they are in the form of medicinal products;

  import and export licences are required for schedule 3 drugs but not for schedule 4 drugs;

  certain schedule 3 drugs are subject to the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973 which require them to be kept in a locked cabinet or locked receptacle. The remaining schedule 3 and all schedule 4 drugs are exempted from these requirements;

  schedule 3 drugs are subject to specific requisitioning requirements; prescriptions must be handwritten by doctors; supply on prescription is subject to certain requirements; and there are labelling requirements for some containers. Schedule 4 drugs are exempted from these requirements.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) of 17 March,Official Report, column 761, if he will list the prisons which his Department regards as significantly over the average level of overcrowding in all prisons. [18209]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about those prisons which are regarded as significantly over the average level of overcrowding in all prisons.

  197
  On 31 March 1995 the total population of the 133 prison establishments in England and Wales was 51,121. The total Certified Normal Accommodation in use at those establishments was 49,441. The percentage overcrowding in the prison estate as a whole was, therefore, 3%.
  Of those 133 establishments, 45 had a population in excess of their Certified Normal Accommodation in use. The average percentage by which the population of these 45 establishments exceeded their Certified Normal Accommodation in use was 22%. In 18 of these 45 establishments, the population exceeded the Certified Normal Accommodation in use by a percentage greater than 22%. These establishments are shown in the attached table.

  Prison establishments with a population of more than 22 per cent. higher than their certified normal accommodation in use on 31 March 1995

  Establishment

  Percentage overcrowding

  Birmingham

  45

  Brixton

  23

  Canterbury

  49

  Cardiff

  48

  Chelmsford

  57

  Dorchester

  42

  Durham

  41

  Exeter

  53

  Leeds

  31

  Leicester

  80

  Lincoln

  42

  Low Newton

  40

  Pentonville

  31

  Preston

  39

  Shepton Mallet

  32

  Shrewsbury

  83

  Stafford

  48

  Swansea

  46

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources are available to deal with overcrowding in prison. [18217]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the resources available to deal with overcrowding in prisons.
  The majority of prisons are not overcrowded. Overcrowding is concentrated principally in some local prisons and remand centres. This is because of the need to hold unsentenced prisoners close to the courts.
  Our first priority is to ensure that existing accommodation is fully utilised. In addition, there is a substantial programme for the building of new accommodation. By the end of the decade, this will provide 6,400 new prison places through the building of new prisons and new houseblocks at existing prisons.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria his Department uses to determine the funding given to prisons in the United Kingdom with particular reference to prison numbers and overcrowding. [18216]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Funding for prisons in England and Wales takes account of the need to accommodate the projected prison population with minimum overcrowding in accordance with agreed standards and policies.

  Funding for prisons in Scotland and in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the relevant Secretaries of State.
  198
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the official cell capacity and (b) the inmate prison population in each prison in England and Wales on 24 March. [17236]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the official cell capacity and the inmate population of each prison in England and Wales on 24 March 1995.
  The information is given in the attached table.

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Population

  Acklington

  658

  631

  Albany

  436

  422

  Aldington

  127

  122

  Ashwell

  404

  385

  Askham Grange

  146

  112

  Aylesbury

  230

  224

  Bedford

  303

  300

  Belmarsh

  792

  589

  Birmingham

  567

  828

  Blakenhurst

  649

  653

  Blantyre House

  95

  95

  Blundeston

  408

  376

  Brinsford

  477

  464

  Bristol

  464

  483

  Brixton

  484

  619

  Brockhill

  111

  129

  Buckley Hall

  90

  90

  Bullingdon

  644

  631

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  119

  Camp Hill

  378

  421

  Canterbury

  184

  274

  Cardiff

  321

  476

  Castington

  300

  283

  Channings Wood

  482

  587

  Chelmsford

  251

  393

  Coldingley

  292

  292

  Cookham Wood

  120

  140

  Dartmoor

  538

  548

  Deerbolt

  417

  393

  Doncaster

  771

  768

  Dorchester

  147

  209

  Dover

  316

  287

  Downview

  287

  288

  Drake Hall

  255

  249

  Durham

  448

  632

  East Sutton Park

  94

  92

  Elmley

  637

  624

  Erlestoke

  270

  265

  Everthorpe

  318

  249

  Exeter

  260

  397

  Featherstone

  599

  573

  Feltham

  844

  847

  Ford

  536

  445

  Frankland

  447

  400

  Full Sutton

  567

  555

  Garth

  512

  507

  Gartree

  277

  300

  Glen Parva

  767

  789

  Gloucester

  202

  243

  Grendon

  190

  200

  Guys Marsh

  240

  238

  Hollesley Bay

  365

  354

  Haslar

  127

  127

  Hatfield

  180

  175

  199

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Population

  Haverigg

  394

  381

  Hewell Grange

  174

  165

  Highdown

  629

  617

  Highpoint

  679

  642

  Hindley

  263

  236

  Holloway

  517

  531

  Holme House

  649

  646

  Hull

  328

  400

  Huntercombe

  240

  231

  Kingston

  154

  110

  Kirkham

  644

  528

  Kirklevington

  86

  80

  Lancaster Farms

  364

  320

  Lancaster

  238

  235

  Latchmere House

  151

  137

  Leeds

  828

  1,096

  Leicester

  192

  354

  Lewes

  312

  302

  Leyhill

  410

  398

  Lincoln

  444

  608

  Lindholme

  567

  594

  Littlehey

  593

  563

  Liverpool

  1,253

  1,255

  Long Lartin

  362

  354

  Low Newton

  198

  263

  Maidstone

  494

  473

  Manchester

  830

  900

  Moorland

  620

  592

  Morton Hall

  168

  168

  New Hall

  169

  200

  North Sea Camp

  201

  205

  Northallerton

  150

  194

  Norwich

  333

  348

  Nottingham

  222

  214

  Onley

  520

  512

  Oxford

  106

  114

  Parkhurst

  253

  227

  Pentonville

  559

  746

  Portland

  382

  396

  Preston

  342

  497

  Pucklechurch

  56

  75

  Ranby

  347

  334

  Reading

  182

  164

  Risley

  794

  764

  Rochester

  294

  266

  Rudgate

  287

  278

  Send

  113

  134

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  205

  Shrewsbury

  168

  304

  Spring Hill

  210

  206

  Stafford

  358

  529

  Standford Hill

  384

  375

  Stocken

  396

  394

  Stoke Heath

  300

  277

  Styal

  250

  245

  Sudbury/Foston

  428

  407

  Swaleside

  512

  507

  Swansea

  151

  205

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  185

  Thorn Cross

  240

  191

  The Mount

  484

  470

  The Verne

  552

  548

  The Wolds

  320

  323

  Thorp Arch

  166

  166

  Usk/Prescoed

  245

  228

  Wormwood Scrubs

  714

  804

  Wakefield

  727

  713

  Wandsworth

  922

  994

  Wayland

  580

  554

  Wellingborough

  344

  305

  Werrington

  114

  110

  Wetherby

  160

  135

  200

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Population

  Whatton

  216

  213

  Whitemoor

  534

  496

  Winchester

  261

  350

  Woodhill

  566

  520

  Wymott

  432

  414

  Total

  49,314

  51,112

  Note:

  Certified normal accommodation is the uncrowded capacity of an establishment.

  Certified normal accommodation in use does not include those places which are not available for immediate use, for example, damaged cells, cells affected by building works and cells not being used because of a shortage of staff resources.

  Portland Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements were made to evacuate those detained in the young offenders institution, Portland, during the unexploded bomb defusing emergency on 1 and 2 April; and if he will make a statement. [18917]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the evacuation arrangements at Portland Young Offender Institution when an unexploded bomb was recently discovered in the vicinity.
  Based upon expert advice received by the Major in charge of the bomb disposal squad, action was taken to relocate 90 inmates within the establishment but away from those areas which may have been at risk if the bomb had exploded.
  Throughout the emergency high levels of supervision and control were exercised.

  John Martin Scripps (Home Leave)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who made the decision to grant John Martin Scripps temporary home leave from Mount prison in October 1994; and which Ministers were involved in approving the decision to grant him temporary home leave; [17960]

  (2) what inquiries or investigations have been set up into the decision in October 1994 to grant temporary home leave to John Martin Scripps; [17957]

  (3) if he will give details of all previous occasions on which John Martin Scripps, who absconded from Mount prison in October 1994 while on temporary home leave, failed to return from such leave; [17958]

  (4) if he will outline what factors were taken into account in determining the suitability of John Martin Scripps for temporary home leave from Mount prison in October 1994. [17959]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  201
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the decision to grant John Martin Scripps temporary home leave.
  On 2 October 1982 Mr. Scripps was sentenced to three years imprisonment for burglary. Whilst serving that sentence he was granted home leave from Spring Hill prison and failed to return on 5 June 1984. He was unlawfully at large until 15 March 1985 during which time he committed further offences for which he was sentenced to two years imprisonment concurrent to the sentence he was serving. Mr. Scripps completed this sentence on 25 November 1986.
  On 22 January 1988 Mr. Scripps was sentenced to seven years imprisonment on charges of importing drugs. After serving the initial part of his sentence in Wandsworth and Swaleside prisons he was re-categorised from Category B to Category C and transferred on 24 January 1989 to Highpoint prison. On 1 June 1990 he was granted home leave and failed to return.
  Mr. Scripps was arrested at Heathrow airport in November 1990 and charged with two offences of smuggling drugs. He was convicted and sentenced to six years imprisonment, consecutive to the seven years he was already serving.
  In September 1993 Mr. Scripps applied for home leave and this was considered under the criteria set out in Circular Instruction No. 43/1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The application was refused but in December 1993 he re-applied and this was granted for home leave to be taken in February 1994. He returned on time and he was granted a further home leave in April 1994 from which he returned on time.
  On 24 August 1994 Mr. Scripps applied to take further home, leave in October and this was approved by the appropriate governor grade. These applications are not required to be put to Ministers and none was involved in making these decisions about Mr. Scripps.
  The area manager has set up an investigation into the decisions to grant Mr. Scripps home leave and, in particular, to establish what factors were taken into account in determining Mr. Scripps' suitability. I shall write to you again once this information is available.
  On 4 April, the Home Secretary tabled amendments to the Prison Rules introducing tighter control on the temporary release of prisoners and, under these, Mr. Scripps would not have been eligible for release on temporary licence during his current sentence.

  Parkhurst Prison (Security)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when(a) he and (b) the Director General of the Prison Service was informed of security problems at HM prison, Parkhurst prior to the breakout in January; and if he will publish or place in the Library details of such warnings; [17291]

  (2) when he received a warning from the former governor of HM prison, Parkhurst, Mr. John Marriott, of potential security problems at the prison. [17290]

  Mr. Howard
  I explained in my statement to the House on 10 January the extent to which I was made aware of the security concerns at Parkhurst and the action which was taken as a result. As I indicated in that statement, I have asked Sir John Learmont and Sir John Woodcock to carry out an independent assessment of events at Parkhurst. This will include the issue of any warnings about security at Parkhurst which were given before the escapes on 3 January. The findings of their report will be published.

  Women Fine Defaulters
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women served 202
  custodial sentences for fine defaulting in each year since 1989. [17206]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many women served custodial sentences for fine defaulting in each year since 1989.
  The number of women received into prison for fine default in the years requested are as follows:

  Number

  1989

  868

  1990

  845

  1991

  976

  1992

  1,044

  19931

  1,342

  19941

  1,440

  1 Provisional figures.

  Information on the population of female fine defaulters from 1982–1992 is published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (Cm 2581, Table 7.1 of the 1992 edition). The average time served is also shown in that table and is about one week.
  The average number of females serving sentences for fine default at any given time in 1993 and 1994 were 21 and 22 persons respectively.

WALES

  Publicity
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total expenditure on(a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible, for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995–96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 February, Official Report, column 530, what was the total expenditure on all publicity by his Department's non-departmental public bodies for the years (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94. [17193]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: A list containing the information requested has been placed in the Library of the House. The Welsh Office publicity budget for 1995–96 is under review.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials

  203
  and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17638]

  Mr. Redwood
  The available information is set out in the following table. The expenditure cannot be broken down into the categories asked for and non-departmental public bodies do not keep separate records of publicity expenditure for earlier years.

  NDPBs' Publicity Budgets

  1994–95 (projected out-turn)

  1995–96 (planned spend)

  ACAC (Curriculum and Assessment Authority)

  36

  50

  Arts Council of Wales

  46

  50

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  2,400

  1,900

  Countryside Council for Wales

  182

  93

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  1,260

  775

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  58

  61

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  42

  44

  Housing for Wales

  61

  148

  Land Authority for Wales

  120

  120

  Residuary Body for Wales

  nil

  3

  National Library of Wales

  25

  30

  National Museum of Wales

  160

  200

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  26

  15

  Sports Council for Wales

  123

  110

  £000

  TV

  Radio

  Press

  Other

  Total

  Of which recruitment advertising

  1992–93

  77

  nil

  350

  1,547

  1,974

  54

  1993–94

  6

  nil

  269

  1,083

  1,358

  47

  1994–95

  8

  nil

  247

  1,470

  1,725

  71

  The publicity budget for 1995–96 is under review.

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 1995,Official Report, column 424, what was the principal reason for the selection of the one Health Promotion Authority for Wales board member not reappointed with effect from 1 April of the four whose term expired on 31 March. [17745]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: Mr. Griffiths has recently been appointed to a new post on the board of the University Dental NHS trust hospital.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the question of the funding of education during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [18889]
  204

  NDPBs' Publicity Budgets

  1994–95 (projected out-turn)

  1995–96 (planned spend)

  Wales Tourist Board

  3,551

  4,507

  Wales Youth Agency

  28

  16

  Welsh Development Agency

  6,400

  6,000

  Welsh Language Board

  100

  45

  Welsh National Board for Nursing and Midwifery and Health Visiting

  20

  nil

  Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments1

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 projected outturn

  1995–96 planned spend

  Publicity

  243

  280

  374

  450

  410

  1 Cadw became an agency 1 April 1991. Since 1 April 1994 figures include expenditure, which cannot be separately identified, on the "Makers of Wales" campaign.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17637]

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh Office publicity expenditure for the last three years is as follows:

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I have received many representations on the question of the funding of education over the last 12 months. The funding of education is, however, a local government responsibility. We have made it clear that, in our view, there is sufficient scope for local authorities in Wales to fund education appropriately from within the overall settlement they have had. BY long-standing arrangement, it is for local authorities in Wales to decide their priorities for spending.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure per pupil in each county council for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96. [19507]

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest figures available for 1992–93 are contained in tables 10,11,14 and 15 of the Welsh Office "Education Finance Bulletin", issued on 24 March 1995 by
  205
  the training and education intelligence unit. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practitioners with fewer than three years' post-qualification experience there are in the county of Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement. [18887]

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by the Gwynedd family health services authority, there is one general dental practitioner with less than three years' post-qualification experience in the county of Gwynedd.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations on the delivery of dental services he has received from people living in the county of Powys; and if he will make a statement. [19043]

  Mr. Richards
  In the last 12 months, four individual representations on the subject of general dental services were received from, or on behalf of, people living in the county of Powys. The Montgomery community health council also submitted a petition signed by 1,661 persons, some of whom resided outside Powys.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received for Welsh Office funding of courses to promote his policies in the field of religious education in schools; and what plans he has to fund courses in addition to the money made available through grant for education support and training. [18859]

  Mr. Richards
  I have received one recent representation about the funding of religious education courses. GEST itself provides a sound mechanism for funding such courses.

  Children's Oral Health
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has undertaken within the last five years into the state of oral health of children(a) aged under eight and (b) aged between nine and 12 years; and if he will make a statement. [18881]

  Mr. Richards
  The dental health of all age groups between five and 15 years is surveyed decennially across the United Kingdom. The most recent survey is for 1993 and was published in 1994. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Liew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Coal Authority over plans to develop potential opencast coal mining in south Wales. [19323]

  Mr. Redwood
  I met with the chairman and chief executive of the Coal Authority on 8 March. Opencast coal mining was one of a number of issues which were touched upon. There was no discussion of specific sites.

  TACP Architects
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what work has been given by him or any quango accountable to him to the architects TACP in the last five years. [19114]

  Mr. Redwood
  Work commissioned from TACP Architects since 1990–91 is as follows:

  Agency

  Work

  1990–91

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Landscaping, structural planting and surveys

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Landscape design

  Welsh Office

  Landscaping scheme at Cadoxton, Barry

  Welsh Development Agency

  Architectural design, planning, landscaping and environmental assessment

  1991–92

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Landscaping structural planting studies and surveys

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Landscape design

  Welsh Office

  Landscaping at Penpedairheol, Mid Glamorgan

  Welsh Development Agency

  Architectural design, planning, landscaping environmental

  1992–93

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Landscaping structural planting studies and surveys

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Landscape design

  Welsh Development Agency

  Architectural design planning, landscaping and environmental assessment

  1993–94

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Landscaping structural planting studies and surveys

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Landscape design

  Welsh Office

  Landscape advice and landscaping at Cadoxton, Barry

  Countryside Council

  Research on the distribution and environmental value of traditional orchards and associated features

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  Architects for the day centre Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor

  Welsh Development Agency

  Architectural design, planning, landscaping and environmental assessment

  1994–95

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Landscaping structural planting studies and surveys

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Landscape design

  Welsh Health Common Services

  Post-contract works at Wrexham Maelor

  Welsh Development Agency

  Architectural design, planning, landscaping and environmental

  Practice and Fund Managers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement to the Welsh Grand
  207
  Committee on 4 April, Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, columns 1–8, what statistical information he has on the number of practice managers and fund managers in post in each year since April 1991; and by what legal authority their salaries are paid. [19254]

  Mr. Redwood
  Although information on the numbers of staff employed by general medical practitioners has been collected for a number of years, the number of practice managers was collected, as a separate category, for the first time at 1 April 1994 when there were 523—373 whole-time equivalent—in Wales. Information on fund managers has not yet been collected as a separate category.

  General medical practitioners are self-employed contractors to the NHS and, as employers, are responsible for the salaries of their staff.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department gave consent to contract splitting in relation to the contract awarded to KLR and Co., consultants to the Welsh Development Agency on information technology and general financial management; if he will list the principal points in which his consent to contract splitting would affect the tendering and approval procedures; and if he will make a statement. [19222]

  Mr. Redwood
  KLR and Co. was contracted to provide cover for the vacant post of chief finance officer on 9 March 1995. This was in addition to the contract under which KLR and Co. was engaged to review the agency's information systems on 23 December 1994.

  These were separate contracts and my consent was not required.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the legal opinion of Vernon Pugh QC on the agency's involvement in the assembly and disposal of land for the Tesco superstore at Gadlys road, Aberdare; on what date he received a copy of council's opinion; and if he will make a statement. [19339]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The opinion was received in my office on 22 March.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the total cost to the agency of the Grant Thornton report into the Tesco—Cynon Valley superstore land deal, if his departmental consent was required for the commission to Grant Thornton; and if he will make a statement. [19255]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The commissioning of the report did not require my Department's consent, although I agreed that the agency should commission an investigation.

  Mr. David Griffiths
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the principal points of(a) agreements and (b) disagreement in his meeting with former Health Promotion Authority for Wales board member Mr. David Griffiths on 3 April; what offers he made to Mr. Griffiths regarding his reinstatement on another non-departmental
  208
  public body in (i) health or (ii) another field; and if he answered Mr. Griffiths's request for answers to his letter regarding the conduct and control of senior officers and board members and their overseas travel at the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. [19256]

  Mr. Redwood
  On 3 April 1995, I met with directors of education in Wales. Mr. Griffiths was present in his capacity as director of education for Gwent. The meeting was concerned only with various education matters.

  Mr. Griffiths has been invited to serve as a non-executive director of the University Dental Hospital NHS trust and he has accepted that appointment.

  I have answered the points Mr. Griffiths raised with me.

  Hinkley Point A
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he or officials of his Department were consulted by the nuclear installations inspectorate in regard to the prospective safety implications for Wales over the decision announced on 3 April to give Nuclear Electric permission to extend the operating life of the Hinkley Point A magnox reactor. [19306]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The nuclear installations inspectorate recently completed is assessment of Nuclear Electric's periodic safety review for Hinkley Point A. This concluded that safety remains adequately high for continued operation of the plant.

  Although the Welsh Office was not specifically consulted about it, the review included detailed consideration of the risks to the general public in the UK, including Wales.

  Horse Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of cases of equine encephalomyelitis in each year since 1985. [19265]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of equine encephalomyelitis have occurred in Wales since 1985.

  Warble Fly
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of cases of warble fly in(a) 1984 and (b) 1994. [19261]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated total expenditure required to clear the backlog of repairs to school buildings, per county council. [19508]

  Mr. Redwood
  Such information is not held centrally. Local education authorities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of school buildings.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the housing revenue grant for each Welsh district council for each year from 1992–93 to date. [19431]
  209
  Mr. Redwood
  The amount of housing revenue account subsidy paid to Welsh district councils since 1992–93 is set out in the following table.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  Local Authority

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1 1994–95 £

  Aberconwy

  1,584,274

  1,515,817

  1,524,838

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,520,527

  2,719,472

  2,751,136

  Arfon

  2,942,801

  3,116,312

  2,825,706

  Blaenau Gwent

  10,775,958

  11,272,511

  11,286,414

  Brecknock

  714,469

  749,124

  774,012

  Cardiff

  19,410,690

  19,496,006

  21,358,039

  Carmarthen

  2,513,450

  2,160,557

  2,100,450

  Ceredigion

  1,884,669

  1,786,023

  1,719,132

  Colwyn

  2,109,823

  2,176,710

  2,223,516

  Cynon Valley

  4,947,233

  5,065,626

  4,752,984

  Delyn

  3,620,231

  3,143,508

  2,877,939

  Dinefwr

  1,246,634

  1,189,524

  1,281,196

  Dwyfor

  840,681

  796,444

  908,360

  Glyndwr

  827,842

  860,859

  667,859

  Islwyn

  5,369,027

  5,281,749

  5,620,094

  Llanelli

  7,044,582

  7,774,394

  8,105,862

  Lliw Valley

  4,308,923

  4,136,117

  4,086,333

  Meirionnydd

  1,061,048

  1,022,707

  967,774

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,872,508

  7,523,287

  7,976,148

  Monmouth

  3,789,654

  3,611,159

  3,503,236

  Montgomeryshire

  666,527

  474,913

  295,577

  Neath

  4,776,019

  4,765,055

  5,269,282

  Newport

  11,244,594

  10,794,066

  10,937,908

  Ogwr

  7,692,875

  7,532,193

  7,381,391

  Port Talbot

  4,749,752

  4,811,834

  5,215,911

  Preseli

  Pembrokeshire

  2,755,958

  2,806,607

  3,035,119

  Radnorshire

  555,486

  440,980

  432,229

  Rhondda

  8,623,018

  8,361,896

  8,229,454

  Rhuddlan

  1,324,330

  1,453,067

  1,603,312

  Rhymney Valley

  10,884,002

  10,823,491

  11,702,169

  South

  Pembrokeshire

  1,642,291

  1,351,363

  1,457,527

  Swansea

  16,023,302

  16,633,469

  18,370,320

  Taff Ely

  6,938,835

  6,735,632

  6,754,749

  Torfaen

  13,117,637

  12,842,923

  12,438,124

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,750,776

  3,807,767

  3,487,123

  Wrexham Maelor

  6,998,218

  7,417,009

  7,463,257

  Ynys Mon

  4,311,793

  4,309,403

  4,473,262

  1 On-account payments, subject to audit.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19672]

  Mr. Redwood
  Overtime payments in the last three financial years were:

  £000

  Welsh Office

  Cadw

  1992–93

  267

  177

  1993–94

  539

  185

  1994–95

  355

  161

  Working days, excluding weekends, lost through sickness were:
  210

  Welsh Office

  Cadw

  1992–93

  23,644

  3,079

  1993–94

  23,831

  2,931

  1994–95

  21,163

  3,122

  Information is not held centrally on the number of hours of overtime worked nor on the monetary equivalent of time lost through sickness absence.

  Figures for 1994–95 are to 28 February 1995.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the capital asset value of the computing and information technology services included in the market-testing/competitive tendering programme for each regional health authority for 1994–95(a) as recorded on asset registers at 31 March 1994 (b) at project net book value as at 31 March 1994 and (c) as identified in the statement of services requirements of assets likely to be transferred to the successful supplier. [19502]

  Mr. Richards
  There is no regional health authority in Wales. No IT services provided by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority were market-tested in 1994–95.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years, and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19844]

  Mr. Redwood
  Three items of furniture containing mahogany from a sustainably managed source have been purchased in the last five years at a cost of £1,922.

SCOTLAND

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what provision the national health service makes for patients awaiting organ transplants requiring multiple prescriptions who are disqualified from free prescriptions because they are above income support levels; what plans he has to revise the specified conditions list to make patients awaiting organ transplants exempt from prescription charges either totally or above a specified level; and if he will make a statement; [19037]

  (2) when the last review of the specified conditions list was carried out; on what date changes resulting from this review were implemented; how the review and its implementation impacted upon those awaiting organ transplants; how the review and its implementation impacted upon those whose medical condition precludes the reasonable prospect of an organ transplant; and if he will make a statement. [19035]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Patients awaiting organ transplants who are not otherwise exempt or entitled to the remission of charges may qualify for free prescriptions if they have any one of the specified medical conditions, including a permanent fistula requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance, and hold an
  211
  exemption certificate issued by a health board. The specified medical conditions were last reviewed in 1993 as part of the fundamental review of health expenditure and we have no plans for change. Prescription prepayment certificates continue to offer savings for anyone not entitled to free prescriptions who needs frequent or extensive medication. Coupled with the wide-ranging arrangements for charge exemption and remission, they ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary prescribed medication for financial reasons.

  Drugs, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report entitled "The Paisley Plan to Smash the Drugs Dealers", a copy of which was sent to him on 29 March. [19005]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcomes the report which was discussed in detail at a meeting attended by the hon. Member and my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State on 29 March. He fully supports the efforts being made by Strathclyde police to deal with the drugs-related problems in Paisley.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued to health boards on the prescription of Temazepam; what is the latest date that he issued these guidelines; what guidelines he plans to issue; and if he will make a statement. [19013]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the light of concern about the misuse of Temazepam, the Chief Medical Officer at the Scottish Office had discussions with directors of public health in November 1992 about measures which might be taken to tackle the problem. Local action so far has included voluntary bans or restrictions on prescribing in some areas, and initiatives to raise the awareness of doctors about the implications of misuse.

  Health boards were also asked to develop local policies in 1994–95 to reduce the use of anxiolytics and hypnotics—which include Temazepam—and to ensure that systems are in place for the clinical review of all repeat prescribing.

  Guidance on the prescribing of benzodiazepines, including Temazepam and other hypnotic and anxiolytic drugs, was most recently issued in November 1994 in the form of a report prepared by a working group set up by the Scottish National Medical Advisory Committee. The report, which was issued to health boards and all doctors in Scotland, gives practical advice on how the prescribing of benzodiazepines can be reduced.

  The need for further advice is being kept under review.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what recommendations have been received from the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs in relation to Temazepam since 1992; what action he has taken on these recommendations; if he will review the position of his Department in relation to these recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [19021]

  (2) If he will make Temazepam a schedule 3, rather than a schedule 4, drug as soon as possible; and if he will make a statement. [18995]
  212
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reviewed the controls on Temazepam in 1992–93 and recommended, subject to public consultation, that the drug should be re-scheduled from schedule 4 to schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. Following wide public consultation and consideration the of responses, the council recommended to the Home Secretary in July 1993 that control of the drug should be tightened. The issues involved are complex, but the Government hope to announce the outcome of their consideration soon.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the private prescription of Temazepam and other drugs is controlled and regulated; what record is kept by(a) doctors and (b) pharmacists of private prescriptions; what plans he has to tighten up the private prescription of Temazepam; and if he will make a statement. [19010]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  When prescribing in a private capacity, general practitioners operate outside the General Medical Service Regulations. It is good professional practice to keep accurate medical records. The General Medical Council has regarded as serious professional misconduct the prescription or supply of drugs of dependence otherwise than in the course of bona fide treatment.

  The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 require that when a private prescription is dispensed by a pharmacist an entry must be made in the private prescription book on the date of dispensing, or if that is not reasonably practicable on the following day. Also, the book must be preserved for two years from the date of the last entry and, in the case of prescription only medicines such as Temazepam, the prescription must be retained for two years. The regulations require that private prescriptions be produced for inspection on request by the Home Office drugs inspectorate or by other persons authorised to demand this information.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ban Temazepam in its jelly formulation; and if he will make a statement. [19024]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no such immediate plans but the misuse of Temazepam capsules is of particular concern and we will keep the position under review.

  Police, Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the civilianisation programme undertaken by Strathclyde police over the past few years; and how it has been supported by the Scottish Office. [19033]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table shows the numbers of civilians added to the authorised establishment of Strathclyde police each year since 1992 and the numbers of police officers released in consequence for operational duty.

  Number of additional civilians

  Number of officers released

  1992

  79

  68

  1993

  94

  83

  213

  Number of additional civilians

  Number of officers released

  1994

  84

  46

  1995 (to 31 March)

  98

  85

  Total

  355

  282

  The Scottish Office pays police grant the usual way at 51 per cent. of expenditure by Strathclyde regional council on the additional staff.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the overtime budget of Strathclyde police has been spent in the two months since 1 February on(a) witness duties in court where police evidence was taken, (b) witness duties in court where police evidence was not heard for any reason, (c) the protests against the construction of the M77 link road and (d) drugs-related crime and violence within K division; and if he will make a statement. [19031]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for the eight-week period between 23 January and 19 March 1995 supplied by Strathclyde police is set out in the following table.

  Percentage of period overtime

  Percentage of annual overtime

  Overtime in the period from 23 January 1995 to 19 March 1995 incurred in relation to:

  (a)—(b) Court attendance

  48.9

  4.1

  (Records do not differentiate between officers who give evidence and those who do not)

  (c) M77 link road protests

  7.1

  0.6

  (d) Drugs-related crime and violence in K Division

  0.8

  0.07

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requests for additional police officers the chief constable of Strathclyde police has made to(a) him and (b) Strathclyde regional council within the past 12 months; what consultations he has carried out with Strathclyde regional council on the funding of additional police officers within its area during that period; what action he has taken to assist or facilitate funding for such requests from the chief constable; and if he will make a statement. [19032]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since the strength of Strathclyde police has been below authorised establishment during the past 12 months, there has been no need for Strathclyde regional council to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to recruit additional officers. Between 31 March 1994 and 31 March 1995 the strength of the force increased by 154, but 20 additional officers could still be recruited before the consent of the Secretary of State would be required.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the desirability of developing sheltered housing in the Foxbar area of 214
  Paisley to allow residents there to remain within the community; and if he will make a statement. [18991]

  (2) what assessment criteria are used by Scottish Homes in determining the need for sheltered housing in communities; how the agency facilitates the development of sheltered housing by housing associations and co-operatives; and if he will make a statement, with specific reference to the Foxbar area of Paisley. [18992]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Housing for community care client groups, including elderly people, is a national priority for both local housing authorities and Scottish Homes and, wherever possible, housing initiatives should seek to maintain the existing social framework. However, the provision of sheltered housing, including its location, is decided by local housing authorities, working in partnership, as appropriate, with Scottish Homes, housing associations and other interests.

  Scottish Homes issued a discussion paper, "Housing the Elderly in the 1990s", in May 1993. Scottish Homes is considering the responses to that paper and will publish a policy statement shortly. It is for Scottish Homes to assess its funding of individual housing association projects. I understand that the chairman, Sir James Mellon, has written recently to the hon. Member about plans for the Foxbar area and has offered briefing by local members of staff.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the population was eligible for free NHS eye examinations in each of the last 10 available years. [19001]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Until April 1989 everyone was eligible for free NHS sight tests. Since April 1989, when eligibility was restricted to certain groups, around 40 per cent. of the population in Scotland has been eligible.

  Alcohol
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the laws on drinking alcohol in public places; and if he will make a statement. [18982]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no such plans. In 1993, following an experiment in three authority areas, we invited all local authorities to consider making byelaws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in designated public places. Byelaws require the confirmation of my right hon. Friend and are already in place in parts of Dundee, Motherwell and East Kilbride. Many other authorities, including Renfrew district council, are working up proposals.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each NHS trust in Scotland the chairpersons and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the operational boundaries of that trust. [18984]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no such chairpersons or non-executive directors. The small number who do not live in the immediate vicinity of the NHS trust concerned all come from the trust's catchment area.

  Evening Primrose Oil
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will enable general practitioners to prescribe evening primrose oil, and products containing it, as a treatment for arthritis; and if he will make a statement. [18985]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no preparations containing evening primrose oil which hold a product license for the treatment of arthritis. Licensed versions are available only for the treatment of eczema and mastalgia. Where general practitioners consider that it is clinically appropriate they may prescribe a drug on a named patient basis for a use outside its licensed indication. However, drugs which are listed in schedule 10 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 may not be prescribed under the NHS.

  A number of unlicensed evening primrose products are available for general sale but are included in the list of items which general practitioners cannot prescribe under the NHS, on the recommendation of the independent Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy for and on behalf of Raymond Gilmour. [19004]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6 March,Official Report, column 86—87. Inquiries into the matters raised on Mr. Gilmour's behalf are continuing.

  Warble Fly
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of cases of warble fly in(a) 1984 and (b) 1994. [19259]

  Sir Hector Monro
  In 1984, 23 herds were found to be infested with warble fly. No cases were reported in 1994.

  Drugs Prescribing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the legislative differences relating to drugs which are classified as schedule 3 as compared with those classified as schedule 4; and if he will make a statement. [19014]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The differences between the controls on drugs in schedule 3 and those in schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 are as follows:possession of schedule 3 drugs requires authority. Possession of schedule 4 drugs does not require authority when they are in the form of medicinal products;
  import and export licences are required for schedule 3 drugs but not for schedule 4 drugs;
  certain schedule 3 drugs are subject to the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973 which require them to be kept in a locked cabinet or locked receptacle. The remaining schedule 3 and all schedule 4 drugs are exempted from these requirements;
  216
  schedule 3 drugs are subject to specific requisitioning requirements; prescriptions must be handwritten by doctors; specified checks must be made before the drugs may be supplied on prescription; and containers must be labelled. Schedule 4 drugs are exempted from these requirements.

  Floods, Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial and other assistance given to individuals and local authorities following the floods in Strathclyde during December 1994. [18998]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government have assisted both individuals and local authorities in dealing with the consequences of the flooding. Resources totalling over £7 million have been made available including:£100,000 supplementary capital allocation to Renfrew district council in 1994–95, to provide temporary accommodation for those made homeless;
  £150,000 supplementary housing capital allocation to Strathkelvin district council in 1994–95 to undertake flood abatement works at Lennoxtown;
  £200,000 supplemental: capital allocation to Glasgow district council in 1994–95 to undertake urgent housing repairs;
  £1.365 million supplementary capital allocations to Strathclyde regional council in 1994–95 for urgent repair work on non-housing services;
  authorising Renfrew district council to carry forward unutilised capital consent of up to a maximum of £1.85 million from 1994–95 for expenditure in 1995–96;
  authorising Strathkelvin district council to carry forward unutilised capital consent of up to a maximum of £0.53 million from 1994–95 for expenditure in 1995–96;
  £2.5 million additional capital allocations in 1995–96 for remedial work on housing to Renfrew district council and Strathkelvin district council;
  £10,000 contribution to Clyde river purification board study on the cause and extent of the recent flooding; and
  an increase of £180,000 in the 1995–96 non-housing capital consent allocation to Renfrew district council to meet the cost of repairs to the Linwood sports centre.
  £120,000 from DSS social fund for payments to individuals in need.

  In addition, the Government scheme of special financial assistance, known as the Bellwin scheme, has been activated.

  A draft national planning policy guideline on planning and flooding has recently been issued for consultation.

  Equine Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of cases of equine encephalomyelitis in each year since 1985. [19263]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Equine encephalomyelitis has never been recorded in Scotland.

  Registered Drug Addicts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce photo-identity passes for registered drug users to ensure that they cannot attend more than one drug-prescribing centre to obtain drug supplies; if he will consider introducing legislation so that all registered drug users are required to register exclusively with the health board in whose
  217
  area they reside and that this health board maintain a photo-identity record of the registered user; if he will consider supplementing this legislation with a requirement that anyone seeking to register as a drug user must do so through his or her local health board and must specify a single prescribing centre to attend; if he will, in addition, legislate to ensure that anyone seeking to register as a drug user must be referred back to his or her local health board; if he will ensure that cross-referencing within and between each health board is encouraged and funded; and if he will make a statement. [19008]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The arrangement recommended in the British National Formulary, and followed by many medical practices, is that registered addicts, before obtaining supplies of certain controlled drugs, should name the pharmacy where they will have their prescription dispensed. The prescription is then sent direct to that pharmacy by the medical practice. There are no plans at present to introduce photo-identity passes.

  Divorce Law Reform
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals for an extension of divorce law reform which includes mediation provisions to Scotland. [19526]

  Mr. Lang
  I am considering the Scottish Law Commission report, "Reform of the Ground for Divorce"—Scot. Law Com. No. 116 of 1989—in the light of the consultation document, "Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce", which was issued in England and Wales in December 1993 by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I have no immediate plans to bring forward proposals to reform divorce law in Scotland.

  Birds (Licences)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences were issued in Scotland under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the killing of(a) goosanders, (b) red-breasted mergansers and (c) cormorants during (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994; and what bag limits were imposed on these licences. [19498]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is as follows:

  Licences issued for

  1993

  Limits of birds to be shot

  1994

  Limits of birds to be shot

  Cormorant

  12

  166

  13

  100

  Goosander

  —

  —

  1

  50

  Cormorant and goosander and red-breasted merganser

  12

  632

  10

  618

  Cormorant and red-breasted merganser

  1

  30

  2

  70

  Cormorant and goosander

  5

  302

  7

  465

  Goosander and red-breasted merganser

  2

  80

  2

  50

  Market Testing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital asset value of the computing and information technology services included in the market testing/competitive tendering programme for each regional health authority for 1994–95(a) as recorded on asset registers at 31 March 1994, (b) at project net book value as at 31 March 1994 and (c) as identified in the statement of services requirements of assets likely to be transferred to the successful supplier. [19500]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Environment Protection Agency
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to appoint a chairman to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. [20161]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to the successful passage of the Environment Bill, I intend to appoint Professor William Turmeau, who recently retired as principal and vice-chancellor of Napier university, Edinburgh, to become the chairman of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency at an initial salary of £36,000 per annum.

  Listeriosis
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of listeriosis were recorded in each of the past five years; and what were the main causes. [18919]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of cases of human listeriosis reported to the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health during the period 1990 to 1994 are as follows. Although no specific source of infection was identified for these particular cases, there is general agreement, based on international experience, that food-borne infection is the predominant means of transmission. Hospital-acquired infection and person-to-person spread are also recognised, but these are less common routes of transmission.

  Year

  Number of reports

  1990

  15

  1991

  12

  1992

  15

  1993

  12

  1994

  12

  Jurors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions over the last year for which figures are available females have been objected to as jurors; and what evidence he has of the number of occasions on which women have been objected to in rape cases. [17479]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: No records of objections are maintained.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been for each health board in Scotland the costs of operating the prescription service for medication in the NHS for each year since 1979–80. [18260]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: The cost to each health board of operating

  £ million

  Health Board

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Argyll and Clyde

  8.40

  10.00

  11.39

  13.03

  14.50

  15.59

  16.63

  17.68

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8.18

  9.67

  10.94

  12.38

  13.61

  13.85

  13.40

  16.13

  Borders

  1.97

  2.37

  2.70

  3.00

  3.29

  3.52

  3.78

  3.99

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2.77

  3.27

  3.71

  4.25

  4.74

  5.06

  5.40

  5.77

  Fife

  6.12

  7.24

  8.17

  9.11

  9.94

  10.54

  11.32

  12.07

  Forth Valley

  5.08

  5.79

  6.56

  7.48

  8.35

  8.94

  9.54

  10.08

  Grampian

  8.12

  9.59

  10.82

  12.07

  13.11

  14.03

  14.92

  15.81

  Greater Glasgow

  19.45

  22.55

  25.34

  28.56

  31.60

  33.72

  35.66

  37.74

  Highland

  3.24

  3.79

  4.26

  4.80

  5.23

  5.56

  5.96

  6.38

  Lanarkshire

  10.60

  12.69

  14.35

  16.41

  18.46

  19.83

  21.21

  22.56

  Lothian

  13.31

  15.82

  17.71

  19.97

  21.97

  23.52

  25.27

  26.92

  Orkney

  0.34

  0.40

  0.45

  0.51

  0.55

  0.59

  0.63

  0.65

  Shetland

  0.36

  0.45

  0.51

  0.55

  0.59

  0.60

  0.63

  0.68

  Tayside

  7.12

  8.47

  9.66

  11.05

  12.31

  13.23

  14.33

  15.37

  Western Isles

  0.50

  0.66

  0.73

  0.80

  0.90

  0.95

  1.00

  1.08

  Scotland

  95.56

  112.76

  127.30

  143.97

  159.15

  169.53

  179.68

  192.91

  £ million

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  19.88

  22.26

  24.64

  27.17

  30.49

  34.38

  36.91

  Ayrshire and Arran

  18.15

  20.13

  22.66

  24.82

  27.63

  30.64

  32.77

  Borders

  4.52

  4.98

  5.50

  6.02

  6.73

  7.51

  7.93

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6.36

  7.05

  7.95

  8.81

  10.05

  11.35

  12.40

  Fife

  13.45

  15.15

  16.98

  18.66

  20.82

  23.35

  25.59

  Forth Valley

  11.33

  12.67

  14.14

  15.79

  18.20

  20.75

  22.48

  Grampian

  18.02

  20.06

  22.22

  24.42

  27.34

  30.81

  33.20

  Greater Glasgow

  42.65

  47.00

  52.61

  57.57

  64.59

  72.42

  78.46

  Highland

  7.26

  8.24

  9.42

  10.54

  11.97

  13.55

  15.00

  Lanarkshire

  25.61

  28.83

  32.29

  35.42

  39.85

  44.79

  47.84

  Lothian

  30.27

  33.27

  36.82

  39.91

  44.28

  49.52

  54.39

  Orkney

  0.72

  0.79

  0.87

  1.00

  1.13

  1.28

  1.36

  Shetland

  0.76

  0.84

  0.95

  1.07

  1.18

  1.30

  1.48

  Tayside

  17.55

  20.19

  22.61

  25.07

  28.02

  31.32

  33.45

  Western Isles

  1.20

  1.31

  1.47

  1.59

  1.76

  1.94

  2.20

  Scotland

  217.73

  242.77

  271.13

  297.86

  334.04

  374.91

  405.46

  Residential Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer, of 22 March,Official Report, columns 337—38, when he expects to receive the report of the working group which is examining inter alia, the ownership, management and monitoring of privately
  220
  the prescription service can be calculated by adding together the net ingredient cost of drugs and appliances and the fees and allowances paid for dispensing these items, and then deducting the income generated from NHS prescription charges paid by patients and from the sale of pre-payment certificates. The following table gives the information, calculated on this basis, for each of the years from 1979–80 until 1993–94. Equivalent information for 1994–95 is not yet available.

  owned residential homes for the elderly; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [18089]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: I expect to receive the report of the working group in the autumn when I will consider its recommendations.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Bradbury Lord Bradbury— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

War Pensions: Payment Errors
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether severely war-disabled war pensioners will be expected to make repayments in cases in which mobility supplements have been paid twice because of errors by the agencies concerned.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, approximately 400 war pensioners have recently been asked to repay amounts of attendance allowance or disability living allowance which they should not have received in addition to their war pensions, mobility supplement and constant attendance allowance. In cases where the overpayment has occurred as a result of official error there will be no compulsion to repay.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, in particular for the reference to no compulsion. Can he confirm that in almost all the cases the errors were caused by the agencies concerned through no fault of the pensioner? As individuals and their families have to base their budgets on the total amounts expected, will special precautions now be taken against repetition of what must have been most unsettling mistakes?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can concur with my noble friend that most of the mistakes were made at the official end. As he knows, we are introducing a computer system for war pensions and that has picked up these double payments. It will help prevent further overpayments of this kind. We are also reminding staff at the offices dealing with war pensions, disability living allowance and attendance allowance of the correct procedures to follow so that such mistakes are not made again.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for his sensitive and generous response to the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Can we hope that the Government
480
will exhibit a similar generosity when the amendment of this House on war widows is discussed in the other place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a clever way to introduce a subject which is a little wide of this Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister's great interest in ex-servicemen via the Royal British Legion is very much appreciated. If there should be difficulties with regard to this matter, will he be prepared to see representatives of the Royal British Legion?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we wrote to the various ex-servicemen's organisations when this problem came to light. I am happy of course to talk to them. Indeed, on Friday I am visiting a poppy factory in Edinburgh and meeting the chairman of the Royal British Legion (Scotland).
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the total sum of money involved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we estimate that the average overpayment is about £2,500. Bearing in mind that there are approximately 400 cases, the total sum comes to about £1 million.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I am a member of the War Pensions Committee. Can he say why the computer was not able to identify the people who received this money, through no fault of their own, and why, therefore, the War Pensions Committee needed to advise them that they could not be forced to repay this sum? Why could they not have been asked for the money back?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that the computer system at Norcross and Blackpool is a new one. These discrepancies have come to light because of the bringing into use of the computer system away from the manual clerical systems which had been used before. On the noble Lord's second point, it is made perfectly clear to the person involved that there is no compulsion to repay. It is merely asking for voluntary repayment of any overpayment which was made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case, as the noble Lord admitted, that severely war disabled war pensioners have had pensions paid to them in a sense by mistake through official miscalculation of one form or another? Is it not therefore right that the Minister should say to the House and to others that the Government apologise for this mistake and that this was an error? Would it not be gracious for the noble Lord to do that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I was trying to indicate that the great majority of the nearly 400 mistakes were due to official error. We do indeed regret that. I should point that that we pay war pensions and mobility supplement to more than 22,000 people and constant attendance allowance to

481
more than 6,000 people. That puts the figure of 400 in context. But we greatly regret that the mistake happened and we are trying to deal with it as sympathetically as we can.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, following on his answer to an earlier supplementary question, the Government's choice of computer systems seems to go astray every now and again? Is the Minister aware that in at least seven recorded instances so far the Government have suffered very great loss of finance either due to the computer systems themselves or to the advice that the Government have been tendered when those systems have been installed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I believe I have indicated twice, these problems have come to light because we have moved from a clerical system to the new computer system at Norcross. I believe that it will give far better service than the old clerical method of dealing with these matters. I would not claim for a moment that computers are infallible, nor the human beings who work them—perhaps more the latter than the former. Almost everybody who knows anything about them realises that, once some of the initial problems which invariably occur with new computer systems are ironed out, they provide a very much better service whether in administration, science and technology or anything else.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, would the recipients have been aware that they had been overpaid by, on average, £2,500? If they were not aware, did they believe that their pensions had been miraculously increased? If they were aware that they had been overpaid, why should they not pay the money back?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to enter into the minds of the people who received these sums. Perhaps they thought that the Government were being even more generous than we are in these matters, or perhaps because these are complicated matters they probably just took the money and felt that that was the right way to proceed.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the Government have behaved with great probity and decency in this matter? Does he further agree that it is an increase in efficiency through the introduction of the computer system which has revealed these overpayments? The Government have a responsibility to seek to recover the money, but they are not trying to do so in cases where it cannot be afforded. Will my noble friend accept my congratulations on the finesse which the Government have shown in this matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always happy to accept congratulations from any noble Lord, particularly from my noble friend. He is quite right that the introduction of computers is helping us in this matter. We are very conscious of the debt that we owe to war pensioners, and that is demonstrated
482
in the very much higher benefits that they receive in the mobility and care allowance than the rest of the population.

General National Vocational Qualifications
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they are satisfied with progress in addressing the criticisms of General National Vocational Qualifications made in the OFSTED Report of October 1994.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government set out in March last year a clear plan of action for GNVQ improvement which has been strengthened in the light of the OFSTED report. NCVQ and the three GNVQ awarding bodies have been taking this work forward and we are pleased with the progress that has been made so far.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is it not the case that it is the immense popularity and enthusiasm for the GNVQ's that makes us anxious that if the OFSTED criticisms are not vigorously and rapidly met the enthusiasm will turn to sour disillusion? Is the Minister not aware that the criticisms are addressed to all three of the relevant bodies—the schools, the awarding bodies and the National Council itself; that some of the criticisms were already raised in a report made a year earlier by OFSTED, and that some of these refer in fact to the division of responsibility between the awarding bodies and the National Council?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. When the GNVQ system was introduced it was in many ways a very new system. We of course knew that it would turn out to have many faults. The question is how they should be dealt with. To our mind they have been dealt with extremely well. I believe that there is a common, and right, perception that a lot of the faults in the system have been shown up as overload on the teachers. The teachers have responded to that extraordinarily well, not least because I believe that they see how good the examinations are for their pupils and how much hope they offer for the future. But we clearly need to deal with these problems. We are bringing in a number of important changes in September and will doubtless follow them with others.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criticisms made show the need for a review of the whole area of post-16 qualifications to ensure that courses for academic and vocational qualifications are equally well prepared and equally valued? Does he further agree that a unified qualification for post-16 year-olds is what is really needed?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, apart from the last part of the noble Baroness's question, I do not think that I would disagree with her at all. As she will be aware,

483
we have just announced such a review. The question of whether the qualification should be a unified one or a number of separate qualifications which are made coherent and properly linked is one on which we can have a long debate. But I believe that the option that we are pursuing of a coherent series of linked examinations is likely to prove much more flexible in covering a very wide range of requirements.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it the case that of the 160,000 who are currently registered for GNVQ only 2 or 3 per cent. have opted for the manufacturing option? If that is true, what explanation can the Minister offer? May I ask also whether it is the case that about half of the 160,000 who are currently registered for GNVQ are going for the advanced GNVQ and whether that is a sign that the advanced GNVQ is achieving that longed-for parity of esteem with the advanced level of GCE?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to answer the second question first, yes. We believe that that parity of esteem is on the way to being achieved. Clearly, one needs a little bit of history and a little experience before one can say that it has actually been achieved, but we are confident that we are moving in the right direction. Perhaps I may characterise the manufacturing GNVQ as the runt of the litter: it has not done as well as the other qualifications. We are giving it particular attention and support. If I were to hazard a guess as to its problems, I think that it has been directed a little astray from where it should have been and therefore has not proved as attractive to industry and people interested in industry as should have been the case.
Baroness David: My Lords, following the Minister's earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, when he mentioned the "overload on teachers", what is being done to make the teachers' load less heavy in the light of what we know about the teachers' situation at the moment?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness with the details, but it is very much involved with reducing the burdens of assessment and record-keeping and with ensuring that the whole system works to remove unnecessary bureaucratic overload.

Transport Research Laboratory
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state their latest decisions with regard to the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 14th March 1995 his objectives for the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory, which he aims to complete during 1995. He will be seeking bids for the
484
laboratory from a wide range of interests. He also announced his decision to provide the laboratory with guarantees of future research work for a number of years, subject to the delivery of high quality, independent and impartial research at competitive prices.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: How can the Government justify giving guarantees of future research work for an indefinite period to a private buyer of the Transport Research Laboratory which they have refused to give to the TRL, their own acclaimed centre of excellence, as long as it remains in public hands? Does not that favouritism for private enterprise show that the Government are afraid to allow the public sector to compete on equal terms, as we found in the case of British Rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. I do not believe that it shows that at all. We believe in a strong Transport Research Laboratory, and we believe that the best future for that institution lies in the private sector, where it will be able to compete and enter new markets. The guarantees will not be indefinite, but because the Government account for a major share of the work commissioned from the TRL—some 85 per cent.—we feel that it is appropriate to give guarantees of future research work in order to transfer that organisation smoothly into the private sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the fact that there has been no criticism of the performance of that organisation in the past, can the Minister now tell us the real reason that it is being sold off—other than political ideology?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not a question of political ideology. The fact is that the Transport Research Laboratory has faced a loss of business. Given the fact that there has been a change and that rather than the laboratory's work being provider-led, departments are now customers, and in view of the fact that the Government's share has declined, we feel that if the research laboratory is to be able to compete properly, to enter new markets, to go for new business and to raise money in the way that it wants, its best future lies in the private sector. We strongly recognise the value to this country of having a strong TRL.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, but what proof does the Minister have that this is the right course to adopt if, once again, the Government are only guessing?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not a question of guesswork. The TRL has lost business. That is the case. We recognise that it is a centre of excellence, but it is constrained by being in the public sector. It cannot, for instance, price its products in the way in which a commercial organisation can. It cannot provide loss-leading products—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, why not?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as a public sector body, it has to reclaim its costs. Therefore, it cannot compete on an equal basis with what will be its

485
commercial competitors. We believe in a strong organisation. The private sector will be the best place for it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it good commercial practice to get a good price for a saleable object by promising to pay a large income to the same seller?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that I have covered the reasons that we feel that the guarantees are necessary. The fact is that the Government commission some 85 per cent. of the work of the TRL. It is because the Government are by far and away the largest customer of the organisation that we believe that those guarantees are necessary in order for it to move smoothly into the private sector.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Government are requiring more work to be done by the TRL, can my noble friend say whether the criterion is to be the public need for such work or whether it will be done without cost?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend asks an interesting question. In the past, the Transport Research Laboratory conducted its research as a provider rather than at the customer's request. Now that government departments and others hold budgets for such research, it is demand-led. Departments decide what research they need and they then have the option to commission that research from TRL. The Transport Research Laboratory has a very good reputation as a centre of excellence, and I am sure that government departments will continue to commission research from that body.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could be a little clearer. First, he referred to the TRL benefiting from the fact that in the private sector it would not be required to reclaim its costs. That is what I inferred from the noble Viscount's comments, but it was a slightly confusing statement. Secondly, will the Minister confirm that it is possible for the Government, through deregulation, to allow a public sector body to compete in the open marketplace and that therefore privatisation is not necessarily the answer to such an organisation's inability to compete when that inability is due to government restrictions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. I do not agree with the noble Baroness. However much one deregulates and moves such an agency towards an arm's length position, ultimately it is a public sector body and therefore cannot compete on the same terms as a commercial body with government money behind it. The noble Baroness was confused by my statement about the recovery of costs. A commercial organisation has complete leeway when deciding how to price its products. It might loss-lead, for example, and provide
486
services to its customers at a lower cost than they cost the organisation. That is not possible for a public body because a public body must recover its costs.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not surprising to hear noble Lords opposite suggest that the privatisation programme springs entirely from political dogma, with no suspicion on their part that their opposition to privatisation may spring from political dogma? Is not the proof of the pudding the fact that the very large sums which taxpayers shelled out in the past to support nationalised industries are now being almost exactly balanced by the very large sums paid by the same industries, which are now in profit, in taxes and back into the taxpayers' pockets?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend has hit the nail on the head. For some people, it is occasionally expedient to ignore the very great benefits which privatisation has brought to the country.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that we on this side of the House, not through dogma but for practical reasons, agree with the Select Committee in another place, which included four Conservative Members, which felt that it was wrong that this good and worthy organisation should be broken up? Will the Minister tell us how many serious applications there have been to take on the job of the TRL? Has it been emphasised that if any other body takes on the TRL, it must remain a transparently independent organisation? It is difficult for a purely commercial organisation not to have some tie-ups. The Minister should look at the record of the National Engineering Laboratory and the things that it had to do for outside bodies because it was the only totally impartial group. If there is a proposition from the existing workforce to take over the TRL on a non-profit making distributive basis, will he guarantee it the same amount of work as he has guaranteed to any private body which takes it over?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord two assurances. First, we have not ruled out any type of bid, such as the one he described by the management on a non-profit-making basis. We will of course consider that hid. The second assurance I can give the noble Lord is that the onus will be on bidders to demonstrate that they will be able to maintain independence and that it will be preserved under their ownership. We greatly value TRL's independence and the quality of the research product which it has put out.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, despite what the Minister has said, it is not entirely clear why, if the TRL is regarded as a centre of excellence and if the Government intend to continue to use its services, it should be put through the disruptive process of having to change its ownership.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at the moment, being in the public sector, the TRL is constrained from competing in certain markets, from competing with its direct competitors, and from entering into all sorts of

487
new business, which I am sure it will be able to achieve once it is freed from those constraints and moves into the private sector.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that as part of the lead-in to privatisation, the TRL was induced last year to shed over 100 of its scientific, technical and industrial staff at a cost in early retirement and severance pay of nearly £4 million? Is it not also a fact that it has now re-employed 30 of those people whom it sent off with a golden handshake and is advertising for 50 more? Is that not proof that the TRL was never overmanned and that its staff is needed to continue this centre of excellence?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the number of people working at the TRL has declined. Those are direct operational matters for the chief executive. He must be able to balance the work that comes in, the work that is required, and the orders that come in, against the number of people needed to produce that research product. To do otherwise would be highly irresponsible.

Sports (Discrimination) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make it unlawful for any administrative or rule-making body for a sport, or any affiliated club, to discriminate against persons who have participated, are participating or are expected to participate in any other lawful sport; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Swiss Constitutional System
3.4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to call attention to the Swiss Federation as a constitutional model; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, having been more fortunate in the Ballot than in the National Lottery, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper.
At the outset I should comment upon two words in the Motion. The first is "Federation". The reason is that Switzerland is often thought of as a confederation, because in a confederation many fewer powers are vouchsafed by the component states to the central authority, and in Switzerland a great degree of autonomy is left to the component states. The second reason is that Switzerland often refers to herself by the old name Confoederatio Helvetica. Hence the letters on Swiss motor vehicles which cause some confusion to foreigners.
In constitutional and international law Switzerland is undoubtedly a federation. One speaks with some diffidence on that matter in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because his edition of The Federalist, with its masterly introduction, is a locus classicus. Nevertheless, there is no doubt—I do not go into it now—that Switzerland is a federation.
The second word I should mention is "model", because any constitution is of course the product of its history and geography—the Swiss as much as any. So there is no question of copying verbatim any element in the Swiss constitution. What it can do, and can do valuably, is to provide lessons to the world. The reason is that Switzerland is a stable, prosperous democracy in the face of—on the face of it—very considerable difficulties.
Switzerland has two major religions, and it is bordered by Catholic and Protestant states which have frequently fought one another, as indeed have the Catholic and Protestant cantons of Switzerland in the past. Switzerland comprises four different national languages: German (the majority); French (about a fifth); Italian and Romansh. Again, the first three are spoken by neighbouring states which have been belligerents in the past, and indeed have sought to enlarge their boundaries. So there is a lesson to be learnt.
Those conditions—a difference of religion and different languages—are mirrored all over the world. When one looks at any continent one finds them: the Caucasus, Kashmir, and the Balkans are but three examples. I propose to leave it to the two noble Lords who are to wind up, who can be relied upon to:
"Let observation with extensive view,
Survey mankind, from China to Peru".
I prefer, if your Lordships will allow it, to concentrate upon two problems which face us immediately; namely, Northern Ireland and the agenda for the second Maastricht conference.
In both cases, Switzerland has much to teach us, as will I think be clear from what I have said about the problems it faces. I am strongly a Unionist, but I am convinced that there must be power sharing in Northern Ireland, as there has been in Switzerland. As regards the agenda for the Inter-Governmental Conference, I strongly believe that we should be at the centre of Europe and doing all that we can to promote its cohesion. Again, Switzerland has lessons to teach.
I turn to what I regard to be the main characteristics of the Swiss constitution. They are, first, democracy; secondly, federalism; thirdly, subsidiarity; and, fourthly, neutrality. I do not believe that we have much to learn in the way of neutrality because it has never been our tradition and it is unlikely to be so. On the whole, our tradition has been to promote the concert of Europe and the balance of power.
As regards the other characteristics, federalism speaks for itself. It is a method of sharing power between component states, which may have considerable differences, and the central authority with more or less power—in the case of Switzerland, it is distinctly less—to conduct matters that are better dealt with centrally on a common basis. As I said, Switzerland as a federal

489
constitution leaves exceptional autonomy to its component parts, not only to the 26 cantons but to the more than 3,000 communes which have great autonomy too. Both cantons and communes have the power to raise their own income taxes.
So much for federalism; but subsidiarity is even more important because it is at the very essence of the Swiss constitution. One of the great achievements of the Prime Minister in his negotiating skill and tenacity at Maastricht was to have inscribed the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, no decision should be made by a decision-making body if it can be made by another decision-making body which is closer to the person affected by the decision. That appears to me to be most important wherever one looks in the world, in particular if one looks at Northern Ireland and the prospects of the Inter-Governmental Conference.
There is a large measure of subsidiarity in Switzerland but it is remarkable how little is spent by the central authority. In Switzerland, it is only 30 per cent. whereas even in the federal United States it is 59 per cent. and in this country it is 74 per cent. That shows how much power is retained by the component cantons. Moreover, it is a continuing process because in 1946 51 per cent. was the Government's share of the expenditure. By 1980 it had fallen to 31 per cent. The same picture is shown if one looks at the number of federal employees.
The third characteristic is democracy, because Switzerland is a profoundly democratic power. Democracy is shown by the test of not if but how far the bulk of the citizens of a country can influence the decisions which affect themselves, Switzerland has achieved high success in meeting that test. It has three kinds of democracy. Like ours, it is partly a representative democracy; it elects members to its parliament both on a cantonal and a total population basis. There are two Houses which exercise considerable power over legislation. Legislation is frequently overturned by one or other House, so much so that the central government tend to negotiate with the Houses before entering into legislation.
There again, we have a lesson to learn domestically because subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. The popular House in Switzerland exercises considerably more autonomy than the House of Commons does in relation to the Government. The second chamber, the cantonal chamber, exercises considerably more authority than your Lordships venture themselves as regards government legislation.
When the Child Support Bill came before your Lordships' House it was analysed and criticised in a constructive way. However, we entirely failed to effect any amendment, which was to the great disadvantage of many of our citizens and, indeed, to the Government themselves. Such a thing would be quite unheard of in Switzerland and therefore I venture to suggest that there is a lesson that your Lordships' House should exercise more confidence in amending government legislation.
I have mentioned a democracy on a representative basis but Switzerland also has a system of direct democracy. In many of the communes the citizens
490
themselves vote on the proposals that are put before them. That was our system formerly in respect of town meetings and it could well be revived. Indeed, if we had greater subsidiarity and gave power to parish councils, the parish meeting could well be a method of popular direct democracy.
I can only mention summarily the two methods of semi-direct democracy that Switzerland has. One is an institutionalised referendum which can be demanded by a body of citizens. That is a highly conservative provision but it is counterbalanced by the popular initiative which is again proposed by a body of citizens. That is not peculiar to Switzerland. Many of the United States have that system to the great advantage, political scientists tell us, by way of countering maladministration and corruption.
I hope that the other important matters will be taken up by other speakers. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is always both an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not least because any speech which he delivers is an occasion for intellectual stimulus.
With all due respect to the authorities and, indeed, to President Mitterrand, who has recently been dabbling in that field, I doubt whether there is any real difference between a confederation and a federation. Indeed, I suspect that those terms originated in the American Civil War where the states of the south felt that they had to describe themselves as a confederation to distinguish themselves from the states of the north which described themselves as a federation, in just the same way as they chose to wear grey uniforms whereas the troops of the north wore dark blue uniforms.
The noble and learned Lord does a significant service in raising this matter in your Lordships' House. Indeed, the implications may be wider than he suggests or than the Government may realise.
As I have said before, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this field rests upon Humpty Dumpty's dictum:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less'".
Unfortunately, if the other 14 members of the European Union, as well as virtually every other country in the world, uses the word to mean something entirely different, it is not surprising that confusion abounds and that Johnny, the only man in the regiment who is in step, is sometimes regarded as a member of the awkward squad.
It is a real tragedy if what may be shared objectives are thwarted by differences in language and expression. We need to bear in mind continually that the purpose of language is the communication of knowledge and ideas and not merely the expression of abuse. That is particularly important in the present context, not least because the federal model is infinitely variable both in form and in content.

491
The implications go very much wider and deeper than mere policy towards the European Union. We have a Union of our own. It is the Union of the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland. That Union is an extreme example of the centralised super-state so often, but wrongly, attributed to Brussels. But more important, it is crumbling before our eyes because the Scots do not like being governed by an English Government at Westminster. That is an essential lesson to be drawn from the Scottish local elections. The only possible counter argument is if the Government do even worse in the English elections than they did in Scotland. I doubt very much whether, even in their wildest moments, the Government would hope to refute the argument in that way.
But if further proof were needed, one has to look only at the attempts of the BBC—an English institution with its headquarters close to Carnaby Street and with a philosophy to match—to interfere in the Scottish electoral process and the retribution which it suffered as a result. We see also the growing evidence of national awakening in Wales. Only last year your Lordships passed the Welsh Language Act.
The only conceivable way in which the Union can be saved in the long term—and I regard it as essential that the Union should be saved—is if it developed not by accident but consciously into a Union of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales; no longer the United Kingdom but the United Kingdoms. That is a federal solution of the kind which has been adopted successfully in the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Belgium, and of course, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, in Switzerland. That is the only way in which the gulf between peoples of different cultures, national traditions and even different languages and laws can he bridged. It is the only way in which the growing gulf between governments and the people can be bridged.
That brings one to Northern Ireland, which has also been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The only conceivable solution to the Irish problem, which is not only a problem of Northern Ireland but a problem of Southern Ireland, is that there will be either a federation of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdoms—and I deliberately say United Kingdoms and not United Kingdom—or a federation of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. What a tragedy it would be if the solution to both those problems of paramount constitutional importance in this country—that is, the problems of the relationships between England, Scotland and Wales and the problem of Northern Ireland—were to be thwarted by mistaken rhetoric based upon imperfect knowledge and reflecting little more than internecine political warfare.
I only hope that this debate, initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will provide the Government with the opportunity to put aside their
492
preoccupations with Alice in Wonderland or, more accurately, Alice through the Looking Glass, and come at last to terms with the real world.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this subject. When I attended this House originally I noticed on the all-party Whip that there was an Anglo-Swiss parliamentary group. I went along the corridor to find out about it, thinking that we might discuss the Swiss constitution, in which I have an interest. I found that all that the group discussed was the preparation for next year's skiing competition between Swiss and British Parliamentarians. Therefore, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord has won the ballot for this interesting debate.
I should declare an interest. Half of my family live in Switzerland. I have only one complaint about that; namely, that one of my grandchildren tells me that she lost marks in a recent examination because she spoke English with a Scottish accent. However, the trouble with Switzerland—which we all admire because it is such a beautiful country—is that unfortunately nowadays it is almost too expensive to visit. With the Swiss franc conversion rate now standing at 1.7 to the pound, it is financially difficult for us to enjoy all the beauty and the amenities of that country.
The question that has been raised this afternoon is: what can we learn from Switzerland? It has been instructive to learn a little about the weight and authority which are given to the various constitutional arrangements—the federal government at the centre, the cantons and the communities. There is a great deal to be learnt from the particular weighting of those organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, quite rightly pointed out that some of the tensions that arise in the United Kingdom could be avoided if greater attention was given to the decentralisation which is inherent in the Swiss constitution.
In the local authority elections two weeks ago the Conservative Party managed to get 11 per cent. of the votes of the people of Scotland—I repeat, 11 per cent. That means that 89 per cent. of the people in Scotland are living under a regime which they resent and which they oppose. That cannot be a long-term arrangement which is sustainable. One cannot possibly have that kind of imbalance because Scotland regards itself as a nation.
If one looks at the cantons in Switzerland, which also have tax-raising powers and considerable powers inherent in their constitution, it will be seen that the Scottish problem—and, indeed, now the increasing Welsh tension—could not possibly arise if we gave greater attention to the danger of centralisation. Over the past few years there has been a substantial loss of power and authority at local level in this country. Local government functions have frequently been replaced by the appointment of quangos which are not at all responsible in any democratic sense. Therefore, the lesson pointed out by the noble Lord this afternoon regarding the importance of decentralisation to make democracy a living reality is important for us.

493
The absence of tensions in Swiss politics is due to a number of reasons. There has been a greater consensus in politics in general in that country. It has been ruled by a coalition government which probably commands 80 per cent. of the total votes in Switzerland, That makes for very smooth government: negotiation and consensus are the rule. But, at the same time, it also leads to a degree of conservatism and to a certain cosiness in the relationships of parties.
Those noble Lords who know Swiss history will recall that one of the great men of Switzerland in recent times was a Mr. Duttweiler who built the most successful retail chain in that country; namely, MIGROS. It will be recalled that, when he asked for permission to open shops in the country, the co-operatives and the private shopkeepers got together and decided that no licences should be provided. That was a very cosy arrangement to avoid competition. Mr. Duttweiler dramatically illustrated his disgust by actually throwing a brick through the window of the Swiss Parliament building. That is somewhat unheard of in the kind of environment in which Swiss politics are conducted.
Reference has been made to the importance of a referendum. There is no doubt that a referendum seems to have a kind of restraining influence on legislation and sometimes has dramatic effects. It represents grass-roots democracy in a very real sense. I shall mention one or two of the recent instances of the operation of the referendum. Enough signatures were gathered in Switzerland for a referendum to take place on the abolition of the Swiss Army. Despite the fact that Switzerland has observed neutrality, the Swiss are rather proud of their army. However, the case was put to a referendum of the people and 70 per cent. of the electors voted on the question of the abolition of the Swiss Army. In fact, the majority was 64 per cent. That was a sufficiently alarming vote against the continuance of the Swiss Army for the government to take heed of it and decide that the Swiss Army would be reduced by one-third by 1985. There is no doubt about that. It is an example of democracy at work.
There have been one or two referenda in that country. In a recent referendum the Swiss electorate decided that, in order to protect the beauty of the Swiss Alps, they would prevent the movement of freight by road across Switzerland—something very important to a country in the centre of Europe—and that, by the year 2000, freight would be carried by rail and not by road so as to protect the amenities of the Alps. That was not done because of a decision taken by the government at the centre; it was done because of a decision taken by the people when voting in a referendum.
The one occasion where the referendum worked, I believe, to the disadvantage of Switzerland—and, certainly to my disappointment—was when a vote was taken on membership of the European Community. But at least the Swiss decided by common consent that they would not join the European Community; indeed, a vote was held. When one considers the fact that Switzerland depends on its international trade—it is a small country with very few minerals—on its ability to export and on
494
its ability to survive by way of high-tech industry, that was quite a remarkable decision. The banks and the Swiss Government supported membership of the European Community, but the people turned it down. That was perhaps unfortunate from a British point of view, because I am sure that Switzerland would have joined us in championing the cause of subsidiarity, which is built into their own constitution. The Swiss would have been a natural ally for us in achieving the degree of subsidiarity which most of us desire.
The other issue which creates a degree of tension is the large number of asylum-seekers in Switzerland. Switzerland is a beautiful country with the highest GNP per person in the world, and so it has 100,000 asylum-seekers. The Swiss people took a vote on limiting the number of new immigrants and the voters decided in favour of it. However, there is a new Right Wing party in Switzerland called the Automobile Party which was originally established to defend the rights of the owners of the motor car. However, it has now developed into an extreme Right Wing anti-immigration party. When it put forward the proposal for a further, more drastic, reduction in the number of asylum-seekers, the very people who decided that there should be some restriction turned down the proposal of the extreme Right Wing. So there is a degree of good sense around. Decisions are being made in the various referenda which reflect very creditably on the democratic idea.
Switzerland is essentially a conservative country and things change there rather more gradually than in some other countries. I would have thought that the attitude of the Swiss Government and the Swiss constitution to women, for example, is unfortunate. It is only now that a second woman has been appointed, after a great deal of hassle in the coalition, to the federal government office. Switzerland runs on the basis of a coalition and it was the turn of the socialists to nominate someone to a government office. The social democrats, who were really to the Right Wing of Tony Blair, put up a woman candidate but the male dominated assembly decided not to have a woman. It was only when there was a threat to the continuation of the coalition that a woman was appointed. In some areas Switzerland and its constitution has not caught up with the ideas that are consistent with a democratic society.
We can learn a great deal from Switzerland, particularly in the field of decentralisation. As I said at the beginning, we have moved more and more into centralised government in this country. It is high time that we looked at our own constitution as regards decentralisation, the spread of democratic control and the right of people to become involved in major decision-making, which is inherent in the Swiss constitution.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, deserves our thanks for introducing a subject on which almost anything can be said with relevance. We have already heard discussion on the European Union, on Scotland's grievances, and no doubt in the course of this short debate other topics

495
will he raised. But it is, alas, only a peg because, seriously, there is no possibility of Switzerland, admirable country though it is, offering a model anywhere. Its history is so idiosyncratic; its formation over a period of 700 years fraught with so many ups and downs, both political, constitutional and religious, that there is nothing quite like it—or could he anything quite like it—on the face of the globe.
I shall discuss only one or two of the points which the noble and learned Lord made. He talked about the fact that two major religious denominations divide the country and that this still—at least nowadays—does not lead to the kind of violence and difficulties which we observe elsewhere. He might have added a third—the powerful force of anti-religious, secularist sentiment which was at the formation of some of the political movements in Switzerland in the middle of the last century.
But the main point, perhaps, is that in Switzerland, unlike in other places where religions confront each other, their adherents are not also members of particular linguistic or ethnic groups. There are French-speaking Protestants and French-speaking Catholics and there are German-speaking Protestants and German-speaking Catholics. Therefore the kind of clash which may occur in other parts of the world does not occur there. To compare the situation there in any respect with the situation in Northern Ireland seems to me so far-fetched as to be out of court.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, suggested that the European Union—it may not long survive—could be modelled on Switzerland. That, again, is enormously far-fetched because what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, did not add to his list of Swiss virtues was a sense of Swiss nationhood. Switzerland is a nation. The cantons may differ; they may have greater powers than is common with subordinate units of government in many other countries, and indeed in some other federations. As the noble and learned Lord said, they have differences in religion and in language. They differ, of course, in having two or three cities of major importance and also in having isolated rural communes which for part of the year have more or less to subsist on their own.
Every kind of division exists in Switzerland but for some curious reason—perhaps because for nearly 700 years it was confronted with the possibility of hostile invasions (after all, it is only a mere two centuries since it was overrun by the armies of Napoleon)—and perhaps for the reason I have just mentioned, they have an extraordinary degree of feeling as regards being Swiss. If Europeans felt about Europe the way Swiss feel about Switzerland, then indeed there might be something of a model in their constitution.
It is also, of course, true that in some respects Switzerland is—as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said—a little peculiar, not sharing in all the fashions which have predominated in the politics and Political discourse of other western countries. But, again, there is a reason for that. I refer to the referendum on the Swiss Army at a time of relative peace in Europe. Switzerland is a country in which its citizens have first and foremost been armed; that is to say, civilians have
496
been trained to defend their country. That is the backbone of the Swiss military set-up. It would have been curious if the franchise had early on been allotted to women who in those enlightened days were not expected to bear arms.
Usually there is an explanation for the actions that are taken. There is also, I think, a further important fact. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made an extraordinary request from a former commissioner when he asked us to observe reality. Switzerland has had an unusual set of economic circumstances because apart from water power, which was not effective until the previous century, it does not have much in the way of natural resources. It has had an extraordinary capacity for making do without them; in earlier centuries by selling cuckoo clocks and—perhaps this was more important economically—by supplying mercenary soldiers to parts of Europe, of which the Papal Guard in the Vatican is now the last symbolic element. In more recent times Switzerland has developed a banking system from which it derives enormous profit, though perhaps some other countries may feel that it also provides opportunities for less than palatable accounts to he secreted away.
I turn now to the Swiss decision on where they stand in relation to Europe, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned. I speak subject to correction, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but it is my belief that the Swiss were never asked whether they wished to join the European Community or the European Union. They were merely asked whether they wished to join the outer ring, the free trade area which now unites other countries which are possible future members of the European Union. The Swiss declined, primarily because there would be no obvious advantage to Switzerland. The present advantages in trade exist because of Switzerland's geographical location and the skill of both its financial and some of its industrial institutions.
Membership of the European Union could not be combined with neutrality. Swiss neutrality is an important international asset. It would have been highly damaging to the rest of the world if Switzerland had abandoned it. After all, it is the fact that Switzerland is and is known to be a permanent neutral which makes possible the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to which so many people in so many countries owe so much. If Switzerland were part of the European Union, which is not and cannot of its nature be a permanent neutral because who knows what its common foreign policy may produce in the way of enemies, the situation would have been quite different.
Switzerland is a country which one is entitled to admire. Having been to school there and visited it to ski, like the family of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I have enormous admiration for Switzerland. However, we must not think that it is perfect, because no country is perfect. Nor can it possibly provide a model.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that Switzerland is a federation. There is no possible definition of a federation which would not include Switzerland. There is division of powers between the centre and the cantons. It is possible to be

497
a federation because at the same time it is a nation. As noble Lords know, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that there is any confusion about the meaning of the word "federal". That is a suggestion which is put up when we say that the United Kingdom could not be part of a federation. We understand what it means. Those who talk about a united states of Europe—a federal Europe—also understand what it means. On the other hand, the word "subsidiarity", which I do not recollect the Swiss using when making their constitution, is a piece of unnecessary jargon which adds nothing whatever to the notion of federalism. It is simply another way of saying how powers could be distributed.
It is therefore important that we should sympathise with the idea that something as remote in Europe's experience as the experience of Switzerland should be considered. But each time we probe we will find that the differences from any other arrangement anywhere in the world are much greater than the similarities.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, touched on a matter which is very relevant to some of the current problems of the European Union; namely, the Swiss attitude towards immigration. That has always been a problem. The Swiss have never wished to extend their territories. The original three cantons came to be 26 by a process of accretion, not of conquest. They have also been aware that making people Swiss would be a long and difficult process. In recent years they may not altogether have been the best employers of temporary residents working in Swiss industry or commerce. The Swiss have had to be harsh to the outside world in order to preserve their distinctive national consciousness, That was noticeable at the time when there was the Nazi regime on one side of the country and a fascist regime on the other.
The acquaintance of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, with Switzerland, is closer than mine today. It looks as though in some respects the Swiss have not been able to stand against some of the less pleasant elements of our contemporary world—youth culture, drug culture and all that goes with those. Zurich is not the haven of peace and respectability that it was when Lenin lived there. Even so, Switzerland is a great country. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked us to think about it. Let us think about it and then proceed to business.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House because I fear that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. I have already apologised to the Minister. I shall stay, I hope, until the very moment when he rises to his feet, but I shall have to leave at 5 o'clock. I apologise.
Much to my surprise, I agreed with something that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in his, as always, learned and witty remarks. I agree with him very much that this is a fine debate which offers us a pretext to talk about something which matters to us—our constitutional arrangements. I did not agree with the noble Lord that Switzerland is a far-fetched country from which we can
498
learn very little in constitutional terms. I do not agree because I believe that in this country we now have a constitutional problem—some would say a constitutional crisis. We need to learn, from whatever source and inspiration, how to govern ourselves better.
On three crucial axes the British constitution is creaking: the relationship between the state and the citizen; the relationship between the centre and the locality; and the relationship between the three traditional arms of government—the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
One reason the British state and the British system are creaking is that we are now the most centralised unitary state in Europe since Napoleonic France. We have gathered power to the centre in the most extraordinary way. A whole series of constitutional problems is now coming together in a major constitutional issue. I shall mention one or two of those problems.
First, there is the problem which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, so wisely identified some years ago when the Conservative Party was in opposition as an "elective dictatorship"; namely, the lack of any formal restraint on the powers of government.
Secondly, there is the question of citizen participation and the distance between government and parties and the people of this country. Thirdly, there is the question of local autonomy and the weakening we have seen in the powers and respect that exist for local government in London. That issue comes to a head with the problem of Scotland and Wales. Like several noble Lords who have spoken—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Taylor of Gryfe—I am a unionist. I wish the union to be maintained, but an intelligent unionist must be a devolutionist. It is no good saying of nations like Scotland and Wales, with their own strong traditions, that they must be administered as though they were provinces of imperial London. Then there is the question of the need to create a new sense of legitimacy in our whole political system.
All those questions come together in the constitutional crisis which I mentioned a moment ago. It is now being put into the pressure cooker of what our future relationships will be with the European Union and what shape the European Union itself is to have. The IGC is approaching and so far the British Government have been conspicuous by not bringing forward proposals for the future governance of Europe, which stop a long way short of a united states of Europe, a long way short of the notion that has, quite rightly, been attacked, but do not go far enough towards the sharing and layering of power in a way that reflects the wishes of the citizens of Europe.
I do not think that it is necessary to embrace the idea of constitutional imitation; to embrace the idea that in some way Switzerland is a model. I do not believe that it is for us. It comes from a different culture and history from ours. But we do not have to embrace that idea to be open to the possibility that we can learn something from Switzerland. It is probably right that successful institutions—whether companies or governments—are

499
learning institutions. They learn from experience and observation. If we observe Switzerland, it has several features of great interest to British politics, some of which noble Lords have mentioned and others which have not been mentioned. First, there is the issue of decentralisation. The Swiss confederation is almost a model of a decentralised state. It demonstrates powerfully that political power can be delegated to local assemblies without any of the chaos, waste and inefficiency which are routinely forecast in this country by people who oppose further decentralisation and devolution. The Swiss model shows that a highly decentralised state can he prosperous. It shows that responsible citizens who are encouraged to participate democratically, at a variety of different levels, can do so. Therefore, it has produced a participatory democracy rather than what at times I fear we are becoming in this country—a nation of cynics, united only in our distaste for what happens in Whitehall and Westminster. Switzerland is a state in which political power derives from the citizens and the local communities where it originates at the apex of the political triangle and is passed upwards. So delegation is upwards rather than downwards from the centre.
Secondly, Switzerland exemplifies very well a greater wish to spread participation than this country. The Swiss confederation demonstrates that a strong state need have no fear of the proper and judicious use of the referendum. It can form part of a mature democracy. As many noble Lords know, proposed legislation can stem from the Federal Council, from members of parliament, from the cantons or—as I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said—by a people's initiative with the signatures of 100,000 enfranchised citizens.
I maintain that over the past century in Switzerland it is undeniable that the instruments of direct democracy have, on the whole, had positive effects. In a time of social fragmentation, it has provided a sure means of enlisting the involvement and co-operation of different ethnic groups. It is hard to think of other countries that have done as well in achieving the participation of ordinary citizens in the running of the nation's social, political and economic life.
Thirdly, noble Lords would expect me from these Benches to refer to another feature of the Swiss constitution: the use of proportional representation. The Swiss confederation uses proportional representation extremely effectively. It shows that many of the arguments used by opponents of proportional representation in this country are erroneous because coalition government in Switzerland has, on the whole, been strong, stable, and popular. Proportional representation has meant that every Swiss citizen has felt that he or she is represented in the deliberations of the nation, whereas in this country, as noble Lords know, a majority of people do not get either the Member of Parliament or the government that they want. In Switzerland, everyone can feel that he has a stake in the legislature that ensues after an election. So we have something to learn from Switzerland; some lessons are applicable.
500
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned Northern Ireland; also referred to by other noble Lords. As spokesman from these Benches with responsibility for Northern Ireland, I congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on the achievement represented by the framework document. One of the most striking features about that document is, first, that it recommends an assembly elected in Northern Ireland by proportional representation. Secondly, it recommends a devolved assembly. Thirdly, it recommends an assembly in which there should be power sharing between communities in Northern Ireland. Fourthly, it recommends that there should be a Bill of Rights, or charter of rights, for the people of Northern Ireland.
I say to the Minister that a great many British citizens will find it difficult to determine why those good, constitutional innovations are to be granted to the people of Northern Ireland and not to the rest of the United Kingdom where they would be just as applicable and helpful in strengthening our democracy.
I wish to say a final word on the future of the European Union and the impending IGC. It is good to hear the "f" word—federalism—coming out and being discussed in a rational way in your Lordships' House instead of in the vein of vulgar misrepresentative populism in which Her Majesty's Government have so far described it. All those who dislike the prospect—as I certainly do—of a European superstate should be supporters of federalism. That is the way to share power, to layer power, to create a system of power that is bottom up and starts with the citizen. It is the way to retain strong traditions, strong nationalities within a framework of pooled sovereignty for the greater good.
I conclude by urging that the Government do not approach either this discussion or the next election in a spirit of constitutional complacency that they alone defend our ancient institution. What we have to defend is the prospect of a real, thriving democracy in this country. To achieve that we shall need reform; for that reform we should be informed by debates such as this debate today.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I return to the happy subject raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, of the Swiss confederation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, would approve that I declare several interests. The first is possibly not a happy one, since one of my early visits to Switzerland resulted in the termination of my National Service through a triple fracture of the leg, two years in hospital—six months in a Swiss hospital—and various other allied and associated consequences.
On the other hand, perhaps a beneficial side to the interests that I should declare is that for 22 years consecutively, as a Member of your Lordships' House, I have been a loyal and I hope sturdy member of the Anglo-Swiss Parliamentary Group so beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Among many other benefits, that gave me at least one week of meeting, talking to and skiing with other Swiss parliamentarians in Davos in eastern Switzerland, well known to many noble Lords.

501
I declare the interest that I have experienced much hospitality, kindness and sporting rivalry. Above all, declare my interest in learning with—and this is important for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and myself as Scots—free language tuition while both skiing and travelling in Switzerland. Therefore, it is a worthwhile experience to look at the Swiss federal constitution—as expressed in the Latin Confederatio Helvetica.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who introduced the debate, mentioned the four languages spoken in Switzerland. I obtained free lessons in three of them: French, which is spoken by nearly 19 per cent. of the population; German, spoken by approximately 65 per cent. of the population; and Italian, spoken by a mere 10 per cent. of the population. Those noble Lords with a mathematical bent will find that those figures add up to 94 per cent. There is also the language of Romansh, which accounts for 0.8 per cent. I obtained those figures from the Swiss Embassy this morning.
It seems to me that perhaps the remaining almost 6 per cent. might be English-speaking, with or without whatever accent they choose to put on that English. So perhaps the fifth language used in Switzerland is English, which most of the population seem to speak.
Forty years ago, during my schooldays, in an attempt to learn German, I spent a whole summer struggling through Friedrich Schiller's story of William Tell. Four years ago, the story of William Tell came alive. It may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that on 1st August 1991 I happened to be in Switzerland celebrating the founding of Switzerland, 700 years ago to the day—the three cantons of the Rütli Rock where the oath was taken. That day and for a Scot—especially with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had to say—everything was free: ski lifts, food, drink and company. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, does not have to wait another 700 years for such a time. Certainly, what I learned and continued to learn throughout my experiences in Switzerland was something of the political system of Switzerland and those who participate in it. It is an enormous achievement that they have put together over 700 years.
I wonder why that has come about. Your Lordships might have their own opinion. I am sure that when my noble friend comes to wind up the debate he will have his opinion and we shall no doubt have an opinion from the Government. But why is it that 6.5 million sturdy, independent, influential and above all quietly and discreetly proud souls in Switzerland have shown such a tremendous achievement in the middle of Europe? I wonder how they have done it.
Perhaps one could just glance at the first three articles from the purposes of the federal constitution. First, the federal constitution declares and asserts the independence of the fatherland from the outside world. Secondly, it seeks the maintenance of law and order throughout the country. Thirdly, it protects the freedom and the rights of citizens and promotes their common welfare. Those rights are asserted through both the federal system and the cantonal or community structure.
502
Switzerland is the perfect model of a federal government. Where is that replicated? Right here in your Lordships' House. The Swiss Parliament meets from 12 to 16 weeks a year, and one of the features that unites your Lordships' House with the federal parliament is that its members are not paid. They receive only expenses. Perhaps that is one example of where Switzerland goes and your Lordships follow; or it might be the other way round.
The federal government have responsibilities in clearly defined areas: foreign affairs, customs, telecommunications and post, and, above all, defence. That is the Swiss Government as carried out by the federal council. I wonder whether we can learn from it. We can see, when we look around your Lordships' House, say, at Question Time, and the other place, that there is a limitless number of participants in government. But in Switzerland there are just seven. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the second woman federal councillor, Councillor Dreifuss, who is a member of that council. The composition of the Swiss Federal Council has evolved to two plus two, plus two, plus one members: two radicals, two social democrats, two christian democrats and one from the Swiss People's Party. The structure is determined on a party basis and on a cantonal basis. As it has evolved, much of it goes a long way towards confirming the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
As a Scot, I think of government as seeking to open my wallet or bank account and extract funds from it. How is that done in Switzerland? The tax sovereignty of the community or canton is sacrosanct. But in the community or commune—the canton—there are defined powers for education and the usual services that are found in our local authority, unitary or secondary tier, as we have it even in Scotland. I believe that that is subsidiarity in practice.
But how and why does that conventional and perhaps even dull system work? Perhaps I may give your Lordships one idiosyncratic view. It centres around a wicked, five-letter word called "pride". I mentioned that the federal government have responsibility for the army. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Taylor or Lord Holme, or perhaps it was my noble friend Lord Beloff, referred to the citizens' army of Switzerland. On Saturday mornings in Switzerland one can hardly get on a train, even though extra trains are run, without seeing everywhere field grey uniforms. That is the citizens' army at training. The soldiers train on a federal basis. They mingle and meet with others from all over Switzerland and they earn great respect. That might be one aspect of how and why the Swiss confederation works with what I believe to be no small measure of success.
A unique aspect of Switzerland is its geography. There are the Alps. According to figures that I obtained from the Swiss Embassy this morning, 25 per cent. of Switzerland's land area is either unproductive or uncultivated. It has no natural resources. But what Switzerland does have is an enormous history of trade, manufacture and, latterly, banking, finance and insurance. The Swiss Information Centre sent me some information on the Swiss economy and—no doubt with

503
great Scottish ability—referred to the nation as being prosperous and industrial. Figures from 1975 showed average per annum income of each person in Switzerland to have been 19,000 Swiss francs. In 1987 it was 34,000 Swiss francs. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be able to do a swift calculation on what he obtained at the currency exchange last week. That is some measure of how the Swiss, with their political system, have managed their life and their economy.
Money does not solve or settle everything. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the debate referred to public spending. I understand that Swiss Government figures last year showed that public spending was 25 per cent. of gross domestic product and the rate of all taxes averaged all over Switzerland was approximately 28 per cent.
I have mentioned both the economy and the geography of Switzerland. I conclude by referring to one particular aspect which might put a brake on the perhaps perfect, rather twee image that some of us may have. Perhaps I have given such an image to your Lordships this afternoon. It is allied to the geography of Switzerland and deals with transport. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the "happy referenda". He may care to cast his mind back to last year when a referendum took place. One of the subjects for voting was something called the Alpen Initiative. That would ban heavy lorries from crossing Switzerland in the year 2000. That referendum was carried against the strong wish of the Swiss Government and the Swiss Federal Council, let alone the Swiss transport Minister.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was far too tactful about the results of the referendum, and I really wonder whether the noble Lord delved too deeply beyond the confines of his family in Basle, because the official programme that the Swiss are proposing to alleviate this problem of the transit of freight from north to south under the Alps is Neve Eisenbahn Alpine Transit, or NEAT, a happy little acronym. That apparently is supposed to be costing 15 billion francs of federal funding. The original plan was to have two tunnels under the Alps: one to be open in 2005 and the other in, I think, 2015. This is under considerable political discussion and undergoing considerable political risk as we speak. Indeed all this was raised because of the problem of heavy goods vehicles transiting through Switzerland where there is a weight limit of 28-tonne lorries. For the rest of the Community, as your Lordships will know, it is 44 tonnes. So to alleviate this problem the Swiss said, "Right, we had better try to drill two tunnels dedicated to trucks to go under the Alps".
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may have heard of the NEAT system. Whenever I speak about it I suffer from the "polecat syndrome" in that my friends fall silent, if indeed they do not scatter. I am grateful for all the thoughts that were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because that makes two of us. But probably if he and I were to go to Switzerland we might find that we are the only two giving unqualified support to this particular concept.
504
I wonder whether this great political discussion, which is shaking the foundations of the Swiss federal tax system and causing considerable concern, although it may be discreetly concealed, in the Swiss Parliament, is necessarily terrible. Is this problem one of geography, economics, strategy or 20th century afflictions, be they 44-tonne lorries, pollution or trade, and is it insuperable? I do not think that it is insuperable. I hope that my Swiss friends and your Lordships will forgive a Scot for intervening in this debate. I believe that the Swiss, with their political traditions and their politics which have evolved over 700 years, will solve their problems. There are one or two aspects of what Switzerland is discussing now that can and probably will help us in the next 20 years.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising this topic which has been, as I expected, extremely fruitful. Very good points have been made by many of your Lordships. I remember a story about Evelyn Waugh. Asked by a journalist how he would vote at the next general election, he said:
"I do not aspire to advise my Sovereign in her choice of servants".
To which the late James Cameron, the journalist, replied:
"I aspire: I aspire like anything."
James Cameron, of course, would have been more an admirer of Tom Paine than of Edmund Burke. He probably fancied that politicians were his servants rather than those of Her Majesty. The Swiss certainly take that view. And that is, I think, the basic reason why they are of such perennial interest to the rest of us. They have come the nearest in modern times to achieving a real direct democracy. This is shown in three ways. First, there is the variety of opinions represented in Parliament. The Swiss, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, pointed out, are an outstanding advertisement for proportional representation. The system may have certain disadvantages, but in Switzerland it works extremely well. It causes a great variety of opinions to be represented and spoken of in Parliament.
Reference has been made to the motorists' party: it may well be that the motorists' party is not quite all that it seems. However, I think the idea of a motorists' party having eight Members of Parliament is worth all the "cone hotlines" that one can imagine. It really is an advertisement for the Swiss system.
Secondly, there is the fact that the Swiss govern themselves in small units. Most matters are dealt with either by cantons or by communes. There are 26 cantons: that means an average population of 300,000. Many have a very much lower population than that. They deal with many matters we regard as belonging completely to central government, including tax. There was a tax expert, I understand, who married a Swiss lady. "What does he see in her?" someone asked. "Oh, he did not marry her for herself but for her cantonal residence."

505
Thirdly, the Swiss system of referenda means that 100,000 people can sign a petition and cause a national referendum to be called which can go against the views of the great and the good. That is extremely important. It is a marvellous way of keeping in order those parliamentarians who take too literally their status as representatives rather than delegates. They have lots of referenda in Switzerland. All visitors to that country will have seen the notices, some new and some half torn, advising "Ja" or "Oui" or their opposites. A referendum can deal with anything from the voting age to shopping hours.
Two recent national referenda have been mentioned. One was to keep Switzerland out of the European single market; the other was to keep heavy lorries off Alpine roads. Both proposals were enacted, to the fury of the talking classes and the great and the good. That is extremely salutary. There was also a referendum to abolish the Swiss army. Such activity keeps rulers up to the mark. If we had more referenda in our country I think we should be far better off.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is right. There are ways in which the Swiss model simply would not work here. The United Kingdom would not conveniently divide into 26 small cantons. The nation of Scotland numbers 6 or 7 million. It is a large and proud nation, with a particular tradition. It cannot be compared to, say, the canton of Schwyz. Wales is the same. We do not divide up in quite that way. Nevertheless, the fact that the referendum system is so successful in Switzerland could well be a lesson to us. Modern technology could render the system very much more simple. I have a pipedream. It is that every household should have a computer terminal and that every voter, identified perhaps by his handprint, could press the button of his choice. I hope that our political servants would not be too reluctant to install an arrangement that would keep them, as the Swiss keep theirs, most efficiently in order.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, whenever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, rises to address your Lordships we are assured of what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, called intellectual stimulation. Again, today, we have heard evidence of the originality of his thinking and in the course of the debate, if I may say so, we have responded.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, chided us a little on the relevance of some of the things said about the declared subject matter of the Motion. He pointed out that in many respects Switzerland is unique. Are we not all, in our various ways? Perhaps, fortunately, none of us is a complete model for anyone else. What this debate has enabled us to do is to discuss the merits of the federal type of government and the range of options it offers. Perhaps the most important lesson laid bare in the debate is the extent to which our generation is hypnotised by the concept of the nation state or, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the centralised nation state. The first article in our credo is that all power resides in the nation station, except in so far as it decides to delegate specific powers upwards or downwards. It
506
may release such powers downwards on such conditions and for such time as it chooses to regional or local government. But, as local government in this country has discovered to its cost over the past few years, those powers are held at the unpredictable pleasure of the national government.
That is not how the matter developed historically. In this country, local government preceded national government. The shire moots and the hundreds moots did not consider their powers to he held by the leave and licence of the national government. Specifically in this country, I believe, the thinking has been confined by the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. It was intended by writers like Dicey to refer primarily to the relationship between the legislature on the one hand and the executive and the judiciary on the other. In that respect it has exercised an important and invaluable influence. But when any attempt is made to extend it to a quite separate subject—discussion about the most convenient size of political unit for particular purposes and the level at which decisions can most suitably he taken—it imposes a straitjacket on our thinking. From my own experience in Northern Ireland I welcome what the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said about its possibilities there. I utter only one caution. Federalism is not the answer to every problem. Of course, if there were a federation in Ireland, the northern constituent would still contain a substantial minority. It would not be a substitute for a Bill of Rights.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and my noble friend Lord Taylor, spoke of Scotland where questions of roads and social policy are decided by a government that the Scots have not chosen and did not want.
One turns in the other direction to the release of power upwards. Nation states are seen as delegating specific powers to the United Nations or the European Union. The deity which gives may be the deity which taketh away. In some of our debates the division of powers has been represented as the extent to which a supranational authority impinges on the rights of the nation state, as though some giant vacuum cleaner sucks power from the nation state, its rights are destroyed and—so we are left to infer—the people lose their freedom. I believe that that is a wholly false pattern. What is in question in relation to each subject and power is the level at which decisions can most sensibly he taken. A decision about where to build a bridge or what land is set aside for a housing estate is not necessarily the level at which one should decide the fishing quotas for Spanish vessels in the western Atlantic. Still less is it the level at which one should decide the appropriate standards for the safety of nuclear reactors or how to save the rain forests. The only rights in question are the rights of the people to decide their destiny in the most convenient way.
I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the uniqueness of Switzerland. The Swiss have developed their model over seven centuries, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, reminded us. They have developed it, not as an abstract academic theory, but in response to specific practical problems. I believe that that is true of most federations. In 1291 the peoples of the three

507
specific areas around Lake Lucerne needed to protect themselves from the Holy Roman Emperor. They grasped that for each of them self-determination lay in taking certain decisions together, even though for each it led to limits on the power to take decisions individually. Sometimes, it is in laying down our lives that we save them. They agreed on two things. First, they said that they would give mutual help if any one of them was attacked; secondly, they said that any disputes among them would be settled, not by war, but by arbitration. That was how they solved their immediate problem. I believe that globally our most pressing problem, like theirs, is to establish a stable peace. In the last resort, that will require an accepted dispute resolution procedure and a method of enforcing decisions against recalcitrant members. In this country, the King's peace was established when it was recognised that a sheriff could summon a posse and that all able-bodied individuals would join together against those who infringed that peace, and when, at regional level, the central government could summon sufficient force to impose the King's peace on the robber barons.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, the Swiss did not think of themselves in theory as constructing a federation. I do not believe that they even thought of themselves as federalists. We would not regard what they produced even as a confederation. However, 550 years later in 1847, after the first step, when they had been so successful that they numbered 13 cantons, they became, not a Stattesbund—a league of states—but a Bundestat. Sometimes federalism is equated with centralism. There is a fear that the first step towards taking decisions at supranational level will lead to an unstoppable centrifugal process, sucking more and more power to the centre. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is not the case, Human beings can always decide in which units and at what level they want to take their various decisions. If and when power moves substantially towards the centre, it does not do so by some impersonal process but in consequence of a decision taken by the people. I believe that in the case of Switzerland that was a rational decision taken in 1847 for good reasons.
In 1979 Sir Shridath Ramphal, then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, encapsulated all of this at the Nigerian conference on federalism. He said that:
"Federalism as a method of organising government has been hammered out over many centuries by peoples the world over with creativity and constant innovation and always on the anvil of political reality".
Of course, it can be said that the Swiss federation has established its unity by force. But the Swiss have been wise enough to recognise two principles without which no force could have achieved its survival. Its constitution both in 1848 and 1874, and in subsequent amendments, was seen as responding to specific needs. No power was conferred on wider units unless there was a consensus that such power was necessary for the purpose.
There are two steps, the first of which is subsidiarity. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I was a little surprised when he poured scorn on the term "subsidiarity". He said that it was only about how
508
powers were distributed. Sometimes that is quite an important question, and in a sense that is what federalism is about.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene. I did not intend to say that it was unimportant because the distribution of powers was unimportant but that the federal model in itself, in its various guises in various countries, managed to do this long before the term was imported into current discourse.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord and I are totally ad idem. That exchange was well worth while. With great respect, I could not agree more.
Another important aspect is consensus, a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and by my noble friend Lord Taylor. It was not just a matter of subsidiarity. A step was not taken until there was a consensus that such provision was not an instance of subsidiarity and that it related to matters where decisions by one canton necessarily affected its neighbours.
Secondly, it was found that stability was not achievable simply by inventing constitutional provisions and writing them down on a sheet of paper. Stability requires a commitment to the purposes of the federation by the people for whose government it is designed. It requires a sense of unity and of common nationhood. That may happen because the people recognise how much they have in common with one another. As many of your Lordships have pointed out, that was not so for the Swiss. They had no common language. They did not have a common religion. Indeed, it was the religious divide which triggered the attempt at secession in 1847 which led to the new constitution. They had in common none of the elements which are normally said to amount to a common nationality, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. Yet the citizens recognise themselves as Swiss, and there is a bond of loyalty between the individual citizen and the federation. Indeed, their pluralism has opened their culture to a wider range of influences.
Federalism does not depend on uniformity of outlook, or of interests, or of opinions. It can provide a sensible way of living together and co-operating precisely despite differences. The Swiss found that a most important way to achieve that was to establish structures through which the people could participate directly in the decisions of the federation and not simply indirectly through their canton. It is a lesson which we are learning in Europe, although I believe that we have to take it a stage further. I do not believe it will be fully effective until some of the powers of the Council of Ministers, which is the citadel of the nation states, are moved to the European Parliament, the institution representing the people.
I believe that in time the world will come to realise that, if the United Nations is to be seen as "We, the peoples", and not just as "We, the nation states", the secretariat will have to be accountable to a representative chamber. Then farmers in France and fishermen in Spain and—dare we hope—more Conservative politicians will recognise a wider loyalty to our planet, which will improve the quality of life for everyone.

509
What the Swiss discovered was that loyalty is divisible. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, being a good Swiss does not preclude someone in any way from demonstrating a loyalty to his canton, and to his own commune.
I must have a care. The noble and learned Lord encouraged us to think more widely and less fearfully about these matters. I hope that we have responded. Not all the thoughts which I have ventilated are yet the policy of my party. I would not want to mislead anyone. But my party is alive to these issues and believes that we should reflect on them together. There is nothing to hold us back except the limitations which we ourselves choose to impose on our mental processes.
Sir Peter Ustinov, president of the World Federalist Movement, once expressed it in an article in the European in this way. He said:
"The sure evolution of Switzerland from a people described by none other than Machiavelli as 'armed to the teeth' into a civilised nation with a world mission out of all proportion to its size can be put down to its intelligent espousal of federalism".
That is a lesson well worth the learning, and I believe that posterity will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for reminding us of it.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and pleasure to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, about the Swiss system of government. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that. It was a stimulating introduction to what I am sure we can all agree has been a most worthwhile debate.
As the noble and learned Lord explained with his customary eloquence, the Swiss system is one with many qualities and good points. Perhaps the most important and admirable of these qualities is that the system works. It commands the support and consent of a diverse society because it respects, both in theory and in practice, that diversity. But because a particular system works for Switzerland it does not follow that it would necessarily work on a much larger scale for Europe, or for that matter anywhere else, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his opening remarks.
The word "federalism" was mentioned at a number of points during the debate. In his opening remarks the noble and learned Lord gave a correct and proper technical definition of that word. But as has also been mentioned during the debate, it has become debased in popular parlance. While we here know what it means I shall endeavour to use the word itself as little as possible in order to avoid wider misrepresentation.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out, this is a subject on which just about anything can be said with relevance, whether it is shooting an apple off the head of my noble friend Lord Lye or going into the merits of Swiss ladies as potential wives. What I shall try to do is to focus on those matters which are relevant to our country and on the main points that have arisen during the debate. I shall also endeavour to divide
510
my remarks into two general groups: those which relate to outside the United Kingdom and those which should be more properly focused within it.
There are huge differences between Switzerland, with a population of around 7 million, and the European Union, with nearly 350 million people living in its 15 member states. I do not, however, intend to try to make a comparison between the Swiss system and the pillared structure of the European Union. That is because I believe it would be a mistake, as we approach next year's Inter-Governmental Conference, to slip hack into a sterile doctrinal and theoretical debate about systems of government. It was this perhaps more than anything else which caused the disillusionment with the development of the European political process and led in turn to the difficulties throughout Europe with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
Just when Europe had shown the rest of the world an example by creating an outward looking, liberal, free-trading bloc of more than 300 million people, we turned in on ourselves. When we should have been building on the foundation of the single market, using this momentum to fight unemployment and further to improve Europe's competitiveness, we turned inwards and became bogged down in divisive and sometimes almost theological battles over the institutional balance, qualified majority voting and Community competence. Those were and remain important issues. We cannot and should not ignore them. But we must not focus on them to the exclusion of everything else. Doing that can undermine the entire process of which they are merely a part.
That is why I believe that reviving a theoretical debate in the abstract about federalism would be unhelpful. Others agree. M. Balladur, M. Juppe and Herr Kohl have said that we must not do that. Only last month, the president of the European Parliament, Klaus Hänsch, told an audience in Bonn that Europe was already too large to contemplate there being a United States of Europe. He said that neither the United States of America Germany nor Switzerland could be a model for the Union, which would develop in a unique fashion. It is not all that often that the British Government and Dr. Hänsch are in full agreement, but on this there is nothing between us.
What we must do in 1996 is to build on the sound base for working together that was created by the Maastricht Treaty, which was implemented only 18 months ago and is still bedding down. Maastricht established a flexible structure well suited to satisfying different demands of co-operation at European level in the contemporary world. It created a pillared structure with inter-governmental co-operation in the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs. In the Community pillar, which covers important areas such as the single market, competition rules, agriculture and trade, the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice are fully involved. This structure needs to be improved, not dismantled. We will be bringing forward a number of positive proposals to improve it so that it works better over the next 12 months or so.

511
A number of noble Lords, beginning with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to Europe and subsidiarity. We have in your Lordships' House discussed this matter on numerous occasions. It is defined clearly in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty. That article was a considerable success for Britain. Its effect is that, in areas of shared competence, the Community can only act if it has genuine value to add over national action. Moreover, if it does act, then it should do so in the least intrusive way possible.
Substantial progress has been made since Maastricht. The Birmingham, Edinburgh, Brussels, Corfu and Essen European Councils have put flesh on the bones of Article 3b. The number of legislative initiatives has more than halved since 1991. All have now to pass a stringent subsidiarity test. The Commission has withdrawn 11 proposals no longer deemed to meet subsidiarity criteria. At the Brussels European Council, the Commission said that it would propose the repeal of about 25 per cent. of all existing legislation. Some of them would be repealed for good and some replaced with a smaller number of new proposals. That work is well under way.
Perhaps even more importantly, the principle is now firmly embedded in the minds of the European Union's law makers. There is a general realisation that what is required is fewer laws, better observed, and that a Community which forces its way into every corner of people's lives will weaken their commitment to Europe.
Subsidiarity is working and I share all noble Lords' enthusiasm for it. The European Union approach I have described is designed for the flexible framework that the Union represents and is rather different from the Swiss model which sets out clearly and formally which areas are for action at cantonal level and which are for the federal government. I doubt that this approach makes sense for the European Union. Would such classification really end the turf battles between member states and the Community over divisions of competence? We have here a subsidiarity model that works. The Government's intention is to build on this in 1996 to make the existing mechanisms work better and not to break them up and start again.
I now refer to some more domestic matters. I begin with some comments about Northern Ireland which a number of noble Lords mentioned. In particular I shall refer to what, if any, relevance the Swiss system might have there and to try to help to resolve the tragic troubles that that Province faces. The key in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the world, is to find a system of government that the local political representatives would support and which is relevant to local circumstances. I believe that there has been very general agreement around the House about that basic approach.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the main constitutional parties there has shown any serious interest in the type of structures which are to be found in Switzerland and which have been the basis of our discussion today; although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned, many of the characteristics of the Swiss system may well be helpful. I believe that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He said that he did not see that the Swiss
512
model had any special relevance for the Northern Irish problem although we seem to be agreed that there may be lessons to be drawn from it.
What seems more likely to secure convergence is a system involving a devolved Assembly, with executive and legislative responsibility for a range of local issues such as health, education and agriculture, and which offers a fair and effective role for all sections of the community. New arrangements within Northern Ireland would be supported by other arrangements for close co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic where this was to the mutual benefit of both north and south and for close co-operation between the two governments.
Ideas on these lines were, of course, published recently in Frameworks for the Future. The ideas in those framework documents have stimulated a level of public debate in Northern Ireland and that is what they are intended to do. They are designed to help the political parties and the wider community make progress towards an agreed, comprehensive settlement. That is what we must continue to strive towards if there is to be lasting peace in Northern Ireland, taking full advantage of the very welcome ceasefires that have been in place from both Republicans and Loyalists since last Autumn. In order to carry forward political dialogue, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that he intends to invite the main constitutional parties for bilateral discussions in the near future.
I was most grateful for the gracious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about the framework document. I am sorry to see that Oxford has called him. Perhaps he will allow me in his absence to pick out one point of detail. Reference is made to a possible charter of rights. However, there is no specific proposal for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. The framework certainly stresses the desirability of increased protection for civil, political, social and cultural rights, but leaves it for further discussion with the parties as to how that protection would be provided. I hope that that is a helpful clarification.
I now turn to the other matters which were raised in the context of domestic politics within the United Kingdom. I understand the approach adopted by many noble Lords who spoke, but it seemed to me that there was a certain degree of cherry picking by those noble Lords who had a particular point to make. If they found it somewhere in the arrangements that are in place for Switzerland, they then said, "That helps to prove our point".
Perhaps more of the debate relating to the United Kingdom referred specifically to Scotland than to any other particular matter. We had a wide range of strongly held views expressed by noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cockfield and the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Holme, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. As is appropriate with someone with his background, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, began his learned exposition with the constitutional history of our country; but it seems to me that in the context of this particular debate it is important that we begin from where we are now. We

513
begin with a unitary United Kingdom. That has arisen not simply by accident, but evolved over time in response to particular requirements which people have had.
Against that background the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that in the most recent local government elections only 11 per cent. of the population voted Conservative. Needless to say, anyone who is a Conservative supporter would rather that more had done so. But it is important that we put that into perspective. There may be a multitude of reasons why people, for one reason or another, may feel disgruntled or antagonistic towards the Government, but it would not be responsible to think about a fundamental change to the constitutional arrangements of our country simply on the basis of one local government election where the Government in power found themselves very unpopular.
In response to the problems that there may be, we have to see exactly where the real focus of interest and concern lies. I understand that in my childhood there was a general election in which the Conservative Party polled more than 50 per cent. of the votes cast in Scotland. At that time perhaps one might have drawn an entirely different conclusion. As regards the constitutional arrangements we have to see where the real wishes of people lie. It is certainly the case that Scottish people have consistently voted for parties which are pro-Union. It seems to us that against that background, if there is to be a change in the constitutional arrangements in the Union, a case has to be made for that change. At the moment, that does not seem to have occurred.
There was a similar point about devolution which applies even more widely as regards how the doctrine of subsidiarity—a horrible word which I am sure my noble friend Lord Beloff would agree—actually fulfils a useful function in this kind of debate. Is subsidiarity being properly applied domestically? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, complained about the gathering of power to the centre.
It seems to me that the same general principles apply here. The particular arrangements that we have currently in our society have not arisen merely by chance; they have evolved over time. It is undoubtedly the case that if one were to go back, say, 10 to 15 years, there was very serious criticism throughout society about the ways in which various activities were being carried out at local government level which were not giving people satisfaction. Again, the problem here is to identify the issue. In a democracy it is collective decision-making which is important and that is to discover what people want. Simply to apply rigidly a kind of doctrinaire principle automatically reducing decision-making to some kind of legally identified lowest possible level, regardless of the circumstances, does not necessarily mean that we shall give people the best system to live in or one that is delivering its services to their best advantage.
514
Reference was made to proportional representation. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who said that one of the great features of the Swiss system was that it proved that PR can work. In fact, the Swiss system is not quite as straightforward as that. It is interesting that most of the cantons have some form of first-past-the-post system. It is also relevant to note that in certain of the Swiss cantons, the different size of the constituencies becomes relevant. In a small canton with just two seats, a small minority party may need up to 34 per cent. of the votes to win just one seat, while a similar party in a large canton such as Zurich may need only 3 per cent. of the votes.
It therefore emerges that the effects of proportional representation are weakened in the small cantons and that proportional rule favours the relative electoral strength of the larger historical parties. Therefore, as far as proportional representation is concerned, I do not believe that the experience of Switzerland takes us a great deal further in respect of any debate that there might be in this country on the topic.
Right from the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord, reference has continually been made to the unique system of referenda in' Switzerland. It is a political phenomenon which undoubtedly attracts many people. Perhaps its most attractive point is that mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moyne, who said that the presence of referenda—checking the government—has a salutary effect on the rulers. Perhaps not surprisingly, speaking from the Dispatch Box, that is not something that necessarily appeals to me.
The important point behind that slightly frivolous way of describing the system of referenda is that, as can be seen from the Swiss case, it can cause serious problems about government because there is now concern about the impact of lobby-driven initiatives. There is an increase in the ease with which the requisite number of signatures is breached and that has led to a backlog of initiatives. A revision of the constitution is due to address that in the summer. Equally, there have been problems about the Federal Council's foreign policy. Clearly, any country has to have a foreign policy and must be able to implement that policy.
We have been discussing some attractive ideas, but it is worth remembering that the tradition in our country is one of representative parliamentary democracy. That is the bedrock on which our nation has evolved. In recent years, referenda have been introduced, but that is very much an ad hoc development and cannot truly be said to he an integral part of our system—and our system has served our country well. We would have to think carefully before fundamentally undercutting what we have been bequeathed by our forefathers.
Many things can be learnt from the Swiss system of government—both about its systems and the principles upon which it is based. But, when all is said and done, what matters is the applicability of the lessons learnt—whether we are thinking about domestic politics or politics abroad.
We must not forget that we have other experiences on which to rely. It is clear from our European experience that if you try to impose unacceptable

515
constitutional models on unwilling participants they will not succeed. It is misguided and usually divisive and can destroy the common purpose that it is designed to create.
It is central to our policy that the positive achievements of the European political experiment are not pushed aside by theoretical debate over constitutional niceties. The way in which Europe develops must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate our shared traditions, history, democratic principles and the rule of law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed out, political institutions can succeed only if they command popular support and provide tangible benefits. While the way in which we work and live together must be intellectually coherent, it must also be acceptable in human terms. If we fail to achieve that, we shall risk making a theoretical system which will not work whatever the level at which we try to apply it.
As far as our European policy is concerned, our task is to build a Europe of nation states for the 21st century which is competitive and which faces its global economic rivals from a position of strength; a Europe that pulls its weight internationally and plays a constructive role in international relations. That is the Europe that Europe's citizens want; that is the Europe that the British people want.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for your participation in this debate. I hope that it is not invidious if I mention only one or two contributions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, showed the great advantage of a refresher course in constitutional law conducted on the ski slopes.
I should like to refer also to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who I know came along to make his speech today at great personal sacrifice. He made his splendid speech under what must have been a considerable strain. All of your Lordships should he grateful to him.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, made the most original contribution; namely, that within a few decades it might be possible technologically for us to have a system of direct democracy on the Swiss model by using press-button techniques. One should put that in the context set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer; namely, that direct democracy in our country, as in Switzerland, was the original form of democracy with the meeting of the Hundred and the meeting of the Wapentake in this country, just as there was the meeting of the Gemeinde in Switzerland.
The subject of proportional representation is altogether too large to be dealt with in this debate, although I confess that it did not surprise me at all that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, jumped at the chance to develop that aspect of the Swiss constitution.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in his scholarly and, if I may say so, constitutionally discerning speech, made a most valuable contribution. I do not think that I am merely prejudiced because our professional backgrounds have so much in common.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who summed up for the Government, addressed all the topics that we hoped would he addressed by him, and did so
516
admirably. However, I should like to refer to the one point on which I found the noble Lord less than convincing. I refer to the subject of the referendum. We have had it in this country. The danger is that unless we work out systematically where it is desirable and who asks the questions, it will simply be clamoured for by a populist minority who find that they cannot get their own way in Parliament. I am convinced that there is a place for a referendum, but it needs to be considered much more carefully by a royal commission on the constitution, together with so many other constitutional matters.
There are two lessons that have come out of this debate. The first is that federalism is one of the constitutional aspects of subsidiarity. The second is that looking at the Swiss constitution, it is impossible to say that a federal constitution means an overweening central power at the expense of the component members. Having said that, there remains my Motion for Papers. I do not know what would happen if I took this Motion to a Division, I do not intend to do so because the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, also has a Motion for Papers on the Order Paper, and I would not wish to deprive her. So I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Workers: Training
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull rose to call attention to the case for increasing the training and expertise of social workers in view of their growing responsibilities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I seek to recommend that the training of a field social worker should involve a three-year degree course to replace the present two-year diploma course. Should a student have already gained a degree, then I recommend that the student should serve a two-year university course. I believe that there should be a degree in social work, with each university responsible for its own degree course, thus giving it the status and standing of the other professions. It is perhaps not inappropriate to mention that I believe there should be a general social services council as recommended by Professor Roy Parker in 1992.
I am grateful to the Council for Education and Training in Social Work; to the many universities which have written or faxed their views; to the Association of County Councils; the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; and the British Association of Social Workers. They all submitted their recommendations during the Easter Recess. Further, I am grateful to have seen Mr. Greenwood the chairman of the Council for Education and Training in Social Work who is convinced of the need for a three-year university course in social work leading to a degree. It is to the credit of the Republic of Ireland that there is already a three-year degree course for social work. I also look forward to hearing what is happening in Scotland from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
Perhaps I may give some background history. In 1987 the Council for Training and Education in Social Work applied to Her Majesty's Government for the two-year course to be extended to three years. I believe that it was agreed that there should be a two-year diploma course and that the qualified social worker would take up a post and return later to take a one-year qualifying course. While I have every sympathy with the Treasury in its policy to curb expenditure, the officials of that department appeared not to appreciate that local authorities (not the Treasury) would have to pay, and that a temporary member of staff would have to be paid by the local authority.
It is true that the training support grant has been helpful. With diffidence I am bound to point out to the Treasury (as indeed have other Members of your Lordships' House in other debates) that to take a short-term view is not cost-effective in the long run, and leads to greater and unnecessary expenditure. For instance, it was stated in the Clyde Report, following events in Orkney, that the social workers were inadequately trained. Great resources have been expended on public inquiries into distressing childcare abuse cases when at least some of those might have been foreseen and prevented. But enough of the past.
The social work service has worked, and is working, under pressure. Since 1987 when the decision to have the two-year course was taken, Acts of Parliament have been passed which lay heavy and difficult duties upon social workers: the Criminal Justice Act 1988; the Children Act 1989; the Criminal Justice Act 1991; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (yet to be implemented, but which concerns social workers); and the Education Act 1993 (Part III). Those Acts are in addition to the 13 other Acts of Parliament implemented or used by social workers.
It must also be said that the explosion of awareness and concern of child sexual abuse, little acknowledged in years gone by, has required knowledge, skill and understanding. We look forward to the report to be produced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is the chairman of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse set up by the NSPCC.
All those Acts require collaboration and co-operation with other professions. Doctors have a five-year or longer training; health visitors have a four-year training; teachers have a three-year training; the social worker is often the person to call a case conference and in some cases to play the leading role, yet he or she is the least qualified among his or her professional colleagues. Social work in the UK is a non-registered profession. I should add also that judges have commented to me upon the lack of knowledge and understanding of the law shown by some social workers. That is not surprising, because 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the two-year course is spent outside the academic institution. Social workers in the European Union have a longer training than those in the UK. My noble friend Lady Elles will speak on that matter.
I wonder whether the heavy responsibilities placed by statute on social workers are generally appreciated. They have to make decisions that affect the liberty of citizens. That is under childcare, criminal justice and mental health legislation and can lead to parents losing children and children losing parents. They must deal with homeless teenagers, the vulnerable elderly, and mental health cases in the community. They need to foresee where prevention of breakdown could be dealt with—a skilled piece of work which needs to be done and needs to be extended.
I pay tribute to the social work service. Much of its taxing work is unheralded and unknown. Only the breakdowns are news, and those are as distressing to the social workers as they are to the cases themselves and to the community.
The status, the standing, the knowledge and the skills need to be reinforced, and I submit that that can best be done by providing a university course. I have not touched upon the training of social workers in a residential setting. I believe that that too should be a degree course, and my noble friend Lady Elles will speak on that subject.
In conclusion, perhaps I may submit to my noble friend the Minister that a residential conference might be held in the first instance, perhaps in Cumberland Lodge, inviting CETSW representatives, representatives of the universities and of the local authority associations, bearing in mind the report of the Association of County Councils, The Work Force and Training in the Personal Social Services 1992. I recommend also that civil servants, particularly those from the Treasury and the Audit Commission should be invited to attend. I am sure that the Sieff Foundation would be willing to undertake that task. With this short speech, I beg to move for Papers.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, both for initiating the debate and for her distinguished contribution to the cause of child welfare as a whole.
I very much welcome the debate and wish to concentrate on the role of social workers engaged in the residential care of children and young people. We are more aware that even children in care are at risk. Regretfully, reports of official inquiries—some general, some specific—into children's homes can be numbered by the score. One of the continuing themes of such reports, from Curtis in 1946 to Warner in 1992, is the need to improve selection and training of staff. That point was made by the noble Baroness.
The past 20 years have seen profound changes in the form and role of residential care, not all of them for the better. Since 1981, the number of children in residential care has fallen from 37,000 to fewer than 8,000; that is, from 40 per cent. of those in care to fewer than 15 per cent. That has been reflected in the widespread closure of large traditional institutions. The National Children's Home, with which I am involved, has closed almost all its large homes. Some were closed as the result of

519
strategic decisions but some were closed unduly precipitately because of the withdrawal of placements by local authorities.
In their place have come smaller specialist units providing care or respite for disabled youngsters, often as an alternative to permanent hospital care; care for profoundly disturbed people, among them the most damaged and delinquent members of their age group; and the offer of independence training to young people on the point of leaving the care system, which is too often the prelude to homelessness or a young offenders' institution.
The positive reason for the reduction in the number of young people in care is the wholly desirable aim of keeping natural families together in the community or, alternatively, of placing children and young people in foster care. However, repeated breakdowns of fostering placements can make difficult problems worse.
The negative reason is that keeping children and young people in residential care is very expensive. Costs can range from £30,000 per year per placement to well over £100,000 in the case of a home in south London in which the NCH is involved. It caters for deeply disturbed teenagers for whom the alternative could at best be a lifetime in prison and at worst suicide.
It is regrettable, if hardly surprising, that local authorities may opt to keep disturbed youngsters in the community in the knowledge that if they offend and are convicted the Home Office will pick up the bill for secure accommodation. However, one way or another, caring for young people will cost us, the public, a great deal. Part of that cost must be employing staff of a sufficiently high calibre and with sufficient training. That has long been recognised by leading child charities such as Barnado's and the NCH, which has had its own training college since the 1930s. But, by and large, those are the exceptions. In many parts of the statutory sector we have seen a reduction in the resources made available to residential care, a neglect of training and the consequential spread of a feeling of marginalisation among staff.
Those staff are having to cope with a residential care population which covers a growing concentration of the most difficult and disturbed young people in our society and with children and young people who need special educational help and who have learning difficulties, disabilities and behavioural problems. As the noble Baroness emphasised, no one should undervalue the work being done in those homes. As was emphasised by the Warner Committee, for example, for the most part those who work there do a remarkable job in trying circumstances for very little thanks or reward. Yet successive inquiries—Wagner, Pindown, Utting, Howe and Warner among them—have found that most of the staff in residential children's homes have little or no training and that the most needy children and young people in our society are being cared for by the least qualified and least experienced staff engaged in social work.
Those inquiries have insisted not only on the need to improve training on and off the job, pre-employment and in-service but they have again and again emphasised
520
the dangers of not developing a coherent strategy for residential care. As ARCC—the Advancement of Residential Child Care—insisted:
"It is time to call a halt to the process of inquiry and report, and to embark instead on a concerted and comprehensive strategy to improve the quality and standing of residential child care for the benefit of children".
To that I add that it is time to reconsider the case for extending the availability of specialised residential childcare.
Such a strategy must encompass respite provision on a regular basis at one end of the scale to secure accommodation at the other, and it must include the provision of temporary accommodation in the case of family breakdown and more permanent placement, which can be a perfectly valid choice by some young people for perfectly sensible reasons; for example, older children who do not wish to be fostered.
However, if residential childcare is to take its proper place in overall provision, committed and properly trained staff are of critical importance. These people are in direct contact with children and young people, often on a 24-hour a day basis. They are very special people and they need very special qualities and specialised training. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drew our attention to the fact that while we rightly insist that doctors, teachers and nurses who work in residential homes must be fully trained, we cannot accept that the staff who actually care for the children should be unqualified.
Among the experts there are differences of view on the best form of training but it is common ground that all heads of residential care homes for children should hold at least the Diploma of Social Work and preferably a degree. I fully share the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness about the inadequacy of the present two-year course and the need to develop it into a full three-year course. I do not pretend to have any expertise in the field but I see the strength of view that, as regards other staff, supervised work-based training that is integrated into the NVQ system is the best way of providing staff with the skills and competences that they can directly relate to the day-to-day tasks.
Very few young people are in residential care because they have committed offences. Most of them have had distressing and damaging experiences, often including physical and sexual abuse. Two out of three suffer from emotional or behavioural difficulties. All are individuals with different needs. All deserve the best help that can be given to them and that help must come through the medium of caring, committed and, above all, well-trained staff.
5.28 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for creating this timely opportunity to debate a subject on which she possesses unique experience and such great knowledge that I speak with trepidation. The first question to be asked is: what do social workers do? Here we must distinguish, today as yesterday, between on the one hand their own descriptions of their work and training and on the other their actual practice.

521
Forty years ago, they were stuck in the phase of what the late Barbara Wootton, then a severe critic, called "pyschoanalytic self-deification", although she was always at pains to emphasise that their practical work was greatly to be preferred to their theorising about it. Their theorising led them to claim that their case work could be identified with the art of changing human attitudes. As reliance upon Freudian concepts diminished, so specialisation among social workers—the psychiatric social workers, the childcare workers and those who worked with hospitals or children—came under attack because of the effect which having to meet several social workers might have on one disrupted family.
One result was the establishment of a few so-called generic training courses in some universities. Another result was the setting up of the Seebohm Committee. That led to an Act in 1972 which abolished the specialist councils responsible for training in social work, childcare and probation. It put in their place one central council, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, explained. That body has become a powerful empire which regulates the procedures and content of training and which enforces its policies through the allocation of grants to the institutions of higher education responsible for the courses which it approves.
Some 18 months ago Professor Robert Pinker, who until recently was a professor of social work education at the London School of Economics, made a comment in the context of a statement made by Mr. Jeffrey Greenwood. At that time, Mr. Greenwood had been appointed chairman of the CCETSW. Mr. Greenwood said that:
"at the moment, there is clearly a crisis of public confidence in social work and social workers".
Robert Pinker traced the problem and the crisis to the introduction of a set of guidelines by the CCETSW which Professor Pinker said:
"firmly introduced the language of political correctness, stressing the need to challenge the 'oppressive' social institutions of Britain, and introducing the notion of widespread racism throughout our society.
With their introduction, the Education Council became politicised, and core skills came to be neglected in favour of ideology. The Council ensured that students would become less social workers than quasi-political activists … by asking them to challenge suppression in all its forms …
I have been professor of social work studies at the London School of Economics since 1978, and it has always been my belief that social workers should deal with individuals and their problems, and should avoid politics or proselytism. Over recent years, I have watched with increasing dismay the erosion of a decent and useful profession, an erosion that has been taking place for years with scarcely a glimmer of government or public interest".
I am bound to say that I agree with Professor Pinker that that is not to suggest for a moment that the evils of racism and other forms of discrimination are not present in Britain. But I agree very strongly with his view that it is not the function of social workers to assume a political role and become the agents and promoters of social change.
522
What should social workers be doing? In addition to their specialist tasks in respect of, for example, childcare, to which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred, they should be keeping abreast of the provisions and developments of social services so that they can advise people who are tangled in the immense complexities of the welfare state and our social services. They should be mobile and accessible welfare encyclopedias within the system, taking vulnerable and ill-informed people by the hand and guiding them as to available services. They are the only people available in the community for that essential task.
My conclusions are that better and extended training is essential. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the need for three-year courses and for a differentiation between graduates and other kinds of people coming into training. But the last few years have demonstrated that social work is not rooted in a firm or stable intellectual tradition. Unhappily, it is not yet a scholarly profession. That assertion is supported, for example, by the lack of research by social workers into the results of their own activities.
The present situation does no credit to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. I hope that the Government will abolish the council and replace it with a smaller and more representative validating institution.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I know that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for making use of her luck in the ballot by raising the important issue of the training of professional people engaged in social work. She made a strong case for raising the level of training for social workers in the light of their growing responsibilities. I shall be interested to hear the response from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, reminded me of the moment shortly after I became Secretary of State for Social Services in 1979, just a year after Professor Pinker was appointed to the LSE, when I said at a private meeting with some chairmen of social services departments that they needed to get a grip of their workforce because many of them were behaving more like socialist workers than social workers. Unfortunately, my remarks were leaked to the press and it created quite a stir. However, I am comforted by reminding myself of the line Professor Pinker took at the time because I think we were both right.
The particular aspect I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is the need for significant change in the arrangements which are made for those who work with the visually handicapped. I speak as chairman of a body called the Visual Handicap Group. That is an informal umbrella body which includes in its membership representatives of the 10 major voluntary organisations of, and for, the blind and partially sighted. We have been in existence for only about three years but in that time, with the help of our able consultant, Dr. Graham Lomas, we have produced two major

523
reports. The first was about the need to develop a network of resource centres for visually handicapped people across the country; the second was entitled Perspective on Training: A Consultative Report. It is about that recently published report that I should like to speak.
Like other speakers in today's debate, I begin with the needs of the client group which is where all social work should start. Noble Lords will remember that in 1991 the Royal National Institute for the Blind published its survey, Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain, which, to summarise a very detailed study, showed that there are nearly a million visually-handicapped people in Britain, the vast majority of them elderly, most of them unregistered—and very few of those receiving any services. The survey also established beyond doubt that failure to register a person as blind or partially sighted virtually guaranteed no access to any of the services that are available.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the survey came as a bombshell, both for the voluntary bodies and for the statutory authorities. It showed that the numbers of people who should have access to services on account of visual handicap was between two and three times higher than the estimates that everyone, including my noble friend's department, had been working on.
Part of the problem lies in the traditional low priority accorded to those with sensory handicap by most local authorities. We have heard today about the needs of the children's services and no doubt we shall hear about the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. As those needs have become more prominent and insistent, so the needs of those with sensory handicap have slipped back. According to one calculation, the availability of trained workers to assist the visually handicapped falls short of the need by over 50 per cent., amounting to many hundreds of jobs which simply do not exist.
Another factor is the manifest inadequacy of the traditional arrangements for training workers to work with visually handicapped people. The former providers of training, the North Region Association for the Blind and the South Region, both of which had done good work in the past, lost the confidence of government and last year their grants were terminated. In their place, the Government established a separate head of the training support grant for people working with the visually handicapped.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of what can happen to someone who is losing his or her sight. The elderly person has passed through the medical profession; that is, from the GP to the consultant. After examination, the consultant may say, "I am afraid there is nothing that medicine can do to save your sight. Have you got someone to take you home?" And that is the end of the matter. Yet there is a very great deal that skilled and committed social work can do for such people. There are living and mobility skills that can be taught; there are services available, such as talking hooks and talking newspapers which can be provided; and in many parts of the country there are, although there need to be more, networks of care which can provide social contacts, mutual support and encouragement to continue to live a full and worthwhile
524
life. There are also specialist services. I should like to mention one with which I am connected; namely, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Indeed, there is a whole raft of services out there which could come together under the general heading of "rehabilitation work". Yet, with far too few trained rehabilitation workers in the field, and with the statutory providers apparently giving a low priority to this work, most blind people are left to fend for themselves.
The first need is simply to raise awareness of the problem. That was done last October in a spectacular way at a "Think Sensory" conference at Wembley. People drawn from a wide range of statutory and voluntary organisations took part. What was particularly encouraging to many of the voluntary bodies concerned was the evidence of a new commitment by the Association of Directors of Social Services to raise the priority of the sensorily handicapped.
Secondly, the voluntary sector has an enormously important part to play, mainly through the agency of local societies for the blind and partially sighted which are taking up the challenge. There are now a number of collaborative schemes coming into existence between, say, a local society and a national body or, perhaps, a local authority. Local societies are increasingly entering into contracts with local authorities to provide services for the visually handicapped. Local resource centres are beginning to come into existence, bringing together many of the organisations which are in a position to help. Perhaps, as examples, I may cite the new resource centres which have been established in Bristol and Brighton; indeed, there is now an excellent one in Edinburgh. National societies such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind are beginning to make contracts, as is the case in Lincolnshire, with social service authorities to provide a whole range of services to a very high standard.
However, the shortage of trained rehabilitation workers is seriously hampering the work. The RNIB, with a course at the University of Central England, the Guide Dogs for the Blind, with its own training school near Reading and with a small offshoot at Forfar in Scotland, and Henshaw's Society in the north west, are now the three main providers of such training. Yet the sum available from the training support programme is only £250,000 a year—at least, that is what it was in the year just ended. It seems pitiably small when set against the need to train many dozens of rehabilitation workers a year.
At the beginning of last year there was a fear that even that sum would not be taken up. Happily, that fear has proved groundless. On the contrary, the demand for places now substantially exceeds the supply. I am told that in this academic year some 29 students, who passed the selection interviews at the GDBA and the University of Central England, have been unable to take training either because they could not personally afford the fees or because their local authority would not, in the end, pay for direct employee training. Perhaps I should explain that it was only local authorities which originally had access to that training support programme money. However, after the Visual Handicap Group made representations to my noble friend's department, it

525
was extended to cover voluntary bodies which are under contract to local authorities to provide services. Nevertheless, the money still cannot be accessed by voluntary bodies which have no local authority contracts or by students wishing to train on their own initiative. That is a great pity because there are many different kinds of people now coming forward offering themselves for such work—for example, people seeking second careers, people who have retired early, people who have been made redundant, wives who wish to return to work, and those people who find themselves unemployed. Such people can bring a richness of experience to the workforce which was not present some years ago. That emphasises the importance of finding some method of funding people who do not come from a traditional, local authority background.
The report of the VHG also examined at some length what the content of training should be. It is clear that the traditional routes, often by way of add-ons to normal training, no longer fill the bill. Much more specific, purpose-related courses are essential. Following the Wembley conference, a strategy group was set up with members drawn from the Department of Health, the Association of Directors of Social Service and the voluntary sector. That is now seeking to carry forward the work to identify appropriate syllabuses and qualifications.
In February, members of the Visual Handicap Group met my honourable friend John Bowis, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health. Our main request was to ask that the Government should now acknowledge that the needs of the visually handicapped deserve a much higher priority and that we need, particularly, to have a higher priority for the supply of trained workers.
We stand, as voluntary bodies, ready to play our part but in a matter of this sort it is for the Government to give the lead, and that is what I ask for this evening. As we consider the training of social workers in general I hope that my noble friend will recognise the particular needs of the million or so of our fellow citizens who are blind or partially sighted. There are people out there willing to be trained. What is in such short supply are the resources to train them.
5.50 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, explained very fully the reasons why it is felt that social workers should have an extra year's training, and that their diplomas should be upgraded to a three-year degree course.
Since they were established in 1971, social services departments have been required to implement legislation in the social care field of ever-increasing complexity, the most recent being the Children Act 1989, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. All of these have greatly contributed to the changed responsibilities of local authority social services departments and the skills required of practising social workers. Of these the Children Act 1989 and the care in the community legislation have increased the workload as well as the
526
responsibilities of social workers. These include a great variety of duties, such as responsibility for those who suffer from mental illness, learning difficulties, sensory and other physical disabilities. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, speaking of guide dogs for the blind. My daughter collects used postage stamps for guide dogs and our village is about to pay for—I think I am correct in saying—a third guide dog. The duties also include not only work with the elderly but with their carers as well, the latter being very important. There are also juvenile offenders, children and families and their carers.
In North Yorkshire, where I live, these groups are served by service units or teams. They are organised on a basis of children and families, older people, adults, mental health, health and disability and learning disabilities. All the requirements that are needed to deal with any situation that might arise make one pause and ask how all this knowledge, with the practical learning, can be achieved within a two-year training course.
Social workers have to make decisions which affect the lives and liberties of citizens. This is particularly so in the case of mental health, child care and criminal justice legislation. They need to know about welfare rights and services which can he called upon, to learn and practise skills for helping people, especially skills in intervening in the lives of those who do not want to be helped. In the case of families, it is important that the approach should be practical and easily understood by the mother, so that an unhappy or harassed mother can easily understand what is needed and how they can be helped, especially those who feel they do not need or want help.
British social workers have the shortest training in Europe. One way in which social workers might be helped to take a further qualification would be for those who have a first degree in sociology or social policy to be able to take a second degree in less time, their first degree counting towards their second one, such as in a law degree.
Can the noble Baroness explain about student loans? I understand that students studying for a diploma in social work cannot get a student loan, yet a student who has a first degree and is taking a one-year post-graduate course in education can have a student loan, and of course a student loan for their first degree. Can this anomaly be looked at? If the diplomas were upgraded to a degree level and extended to three years I imagine a student would then be eligible for a student loan.
Another benefit of the extension of the course to three years would be to enable students to enter social practice components of the course with a greater foundation knowledge in social science, which would obviously be a great help to them in their work. Can the noble Baroness say whether that would enable social workers with a degree to work in the European Union? The European Commission regulations apparently differ between member states for the training of social workers. There appears to be a requirement of three years' training as a minimum basic requirement. I understand that their courses end in a degree.

527
I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has to say about the member states of the European Union. At present social workers from other members of the EU are able to work here, but our qualifications are not recognised in the EU. That appears to create an unfair, one-way opportunity. Do those who apply to work here have to show they are qualified in English'? English is a difficult language, and to show how difficult, I would like to end with a quotation from a novel, The Cruel Sea, by Nicholas Monserrat, in which a Russian interpreter says to a British naval officer in Murmansk,
"You British, you think we know damn nothing, I tell you we know damn all".
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot beat that one but 1 shall try to say a little on what I hope I know about. We must all recognise how extremely fortunate we are to have had this debate introduced by someone who is incomparable in the field of social work in this country. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has already this evening shown her immense practical knowledge and experience in this field and we are most grateful to her for introducing this subject today.
The Government have recognised the need for training, and continuous training, in many fields in this country, particularly in industry and the development of technology and innovative subjects and science. However, it is extraordinary that, although so much change has occurred in the industrial field, there is no other field in national life which has changed more than our social life. I refer to the breakdown of marriages, drug addiction, sexual abuse and whole fields of events of which we in your Lordships' House are only too well aware. However, I have not yet heard the Government recognise that this, too, is a field in which closer attention must be given to the adequate and efficient training of people who have to deal with these radical changes in social as well as in industrial life. I shall be anxious to hear what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will say on the Government's approach to the need for a new look at training in this difficult and complex area.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the complexity of the welfare state. However, nothing can be more complex than our own lives and those of children, of ill people and of people in different sectors of our society who have already been mentioned in our debates. In this House, above all places, we are only too well aware of the impositions that have been placed on local authorities through legislation. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has already enumerated many of the Acts which have affected the work of local authorities and has referred to the need for trained social workers to deal with the many tasks with which authorities have to deal on a daily and long-term basis.
We are, of course, aware of reports of failures which have appeared in the media. We are aware of reports of errors which, regrettably, some social workers have committed. We are all aware of these failures. However, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, we are not always aware of the immense work and dedication which so many social workers have given to difficult
528
tasks day in and day out with little notice, little reward and with no commendation from the public and indeed from the Government. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the opportunity to thank and commend the invaluable work which is done by so many thousands of our dedicated workers.
When we consider training, we may think of training in the field of technology. If someone makes a mistake when using a computer, at the end of the day he may have to buy a new computer—for example if he has pressed the wrong button. But do we recognise the difficulties which arise if a social worker makes a wrong judgment and makes a decision on the basis of that judgment which can alter for ever the life of a particular individual, be he a child or an adult'? Surely the life and way of living of one person is just as valuable as a computer which may be thrown away when someone has made a mistake. I hope that that point will go home.
As regards the residential care work being carried on in this country, I know of no place where more work is done and more attention given than in the Caldecott Community home in Kent, of which I have the honour to be a trustee and whose distinguished chairman is my noble friend Lady Faithfull. There is evidence of tragedy in the lives of the seriously disturbed children who come to the home. Between 70 and 75 children stay in the home, either to save them from impossible situations or to protect society from them.
The task of residential workers at the Caldecott Community is to ensure that at the age of 18 those children are able to face the world on their own, emerging from care, protection and affection. The aim is to teach the children emotional balance and ensure that they are able to earn their own living at the age of 18.
Those of us who are parents or grandparents know that even with all the benefits of our society which so many of us enjoy it is very difficult to ensure that even well-balanced children, with all the comforts and facilities that we can give them, are able to fit into society today at the age of 18 when they suddenly find themselves on their own. Therefore, surely it is much more important to have skilled residential care workers to look after children who have to rely on those individuals to enable them to cope with life when they leave the Caldecott Community.
Thanks largely to the energy and enthusiasm of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the Caldecott Community has set up a Caldecott College which offers courses to those working in the childcare sector. That covers foster parents, child minders and others. The college also offers a degree course for social workers in a residential setting. The intention is that those people will have practical experience of what it is like to look after seriously disturbed children 24 hours a day. As the director of the Caldecott Community never fails to tell us, children have become more and more difficult in recent years. Our day-to-day experience confirms the need for this specialised course.
The degree course has been set up in agreement with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Whether the council should be abolished is

529
another matter, not to be debated now, but the council has agreed that the course is invaluable in dealing with this particular subject.
I should like to touch on the European aspect. Early this afternoon we had a debate which related to subsidiarity. This is one area where there is no longer to be harmonisation of standards for the training of social workers. The European Commission no longer has a co-ordinating role in this field. In some countries—for example, in Belgium—there is an obligatory three-year course after secondary education which ends either with a diploma or, usually after four years, a degree. That system applies throughout the member states. However, there is not to be a system whereby a general standard is recognised throughout the member states of the Community.
There is an international association for social workers with a European Community liaison committee. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have information on this subject from that body. I am sure that it will be of benefit to examine the type of courses which are held throughout the Community. Many Community countries look at our own system, knowing the many problems that we have in this country, which are not always reflected in their own societies. One will see in any newspaper throughout the Community that individual countries have to deal with different problems, and they train their social workers to deal with those specific problems in their countries and within their local authorities and regional authorities. I believe that it would be well worthwhile for the department to investigate those systems and courses in order to establish the best that can be produced.
In terms of recognition of diplomas, presumably somebody who has taken a two-year training course would not be given the same job as a social worker in Belgium, where a three-year course is necessary. It is not a question of the subject matter being different, but the depth of training is lacking in a two-year course. I hope that that is a matter which the Government will look at to ensure that we are not negligent and that our own trained social workers do not fall below a general standard, whether or not one calls that a European standard.
I should like to touch on one further area. It is a phenomenon which, although not new, is now facing experts in the field. That problem is actions perpetrated by some people in official positions against whom it is difficult to take action. The problem has been brought to my attention by psychologists who have had to deal with difficult situations which, at present, can be dealt with only by taking action in the civil courts against somebody who has perpetrated some act against a victim. Social workers are often the only people who can deal with such problems.
In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for giving so many of us the opportunity to speak of our own limited experiences in this field. The voluntary social work of 30 years ago is no longer recognisable in today's society. I hope that
530
the Minister will take on board the remarks that have been made this afternoon and that we shall have a positive response to the needs of our social workers.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness who has just spoken in such an interesting fashion and all the other speakers in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. After the noble Baroness had finished speaking I wondered whether there was any more to be said. That is the trouble with a really first-class opening speech; it leaves everyone else with a sense of hopelessness. However, we have to do our best.
I was moved by the reference to the partially sighted. About a year ago I ceased to find it possible to read any book which was not in large print or to read a newspaper article. I have to ask my wife to read to me if she is in the mood. However, there are compensations. One cannot use notes, and we are always told that in the House of Lords Peers do not read their speeches. So at least one is spared that temptation. I remember that the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, spoke much better when he was almost blind than when he could see. One draws some encouragement from that example.
The noble Baroness has unique knowledge of local government. It is a rather dismal reflection that when she came to this House many years ago she was the only qualified social worker, and she is still the only qualified social worker, in this place. I do not know what conclusion one should draw from that. Perhaps social workers do not occupy a high enough position in our society today.
I recognise, as we all do, the almost terrifying responsibilities that may fall on social workers. That has been in my mind since this morning when I visited a man who is in prison. He is serving 12 months in prison and his wife is also serving 12 months in prison. I only know his side of the story, and I do not offer an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the case. According to his own account he and his wife are in prison because they attempted to interfere improperly with the lives of their five children, who were taken away from them six years ago on the recommendation of social workers. For six years they have been trying to get those children back. Apparently they made such a fuss, or behaved in what was thought to be the wrong way, that they both find themselves in prison now. I do not offer an opinion. Those social workers may have taken the right decision, or they may have taken the wrong decision. However, it is a terrifying responsibility to take five children away from a father and mother who, to the best of my belief, love those children.
Those are vital responsibilities and that is why social workers need thorough and careful training. I agree with what has been said by various people, including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that proper training is vital for doctors like my noble friend Lord Rea, lawyers, the police and teachers. We all agree that professional training is vital for social workers. Some people may say that it is possible to succeed in life without much education. Sir Winston Churchill had to leave Harrow

531
in order to be crammed for Sandhurst and we understand that Mr. Major and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, both left school at the age of 16, but all three got on very well in the world.
One may say that education is not absolutely essential, but we generally agree that it is highly desirable and it should be provided for the whole community. As parents, we make every effort to ensure that our children have a good education. Education and training are much better than no education and no training.
We come to the question: what training and how long should it be? Yesterday I had the privilege of talking to three social workers at different levels. One was near the top of the profession locally; another qualified and passed his diploma some time ago and after years of experience in work and marriage he is now taking a further degree. The third is a young woman taking her diploma now. All three arc at different stages but they all agree on the absolute necessity for thorough academic training and experience of work—that is a double training.
How should that be provided? We must bear in mind that a two-year course rightly includes about a year working in the field. Academically speaking, therefore, the course is for only one year. Speaking as a former university tutor, I regard a one-year course as derisory for an academic qualification or any degree. Therefore, on the face of it the two years should be extended to three. It may seem that that stands to reason, but it becomes even more obvious in the light of the facts brought forward initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and other later speakers, about the increasing responsibilities. The noble Baroness read out a list of Acts which, in recent years, have placed new responsibilities on social workers. I have in mind particularly responsibilities for the mentally ill, who are complicated cases. No one can say that a knowledge of psychology is anything but extremely useful, perhaps indispensable in dealing with such mental cases. That is only one example.
The whole idea of community care means that more and more work, more burdens, more responsibilities and more delicate choices are thrust on the shoulders of the devoted social workers. Some people would suggest that for voluntary work one does not need training. Most of us here have done voluntary work and we would not argue in that foolish way. My noble friend Lord Murray referred to the terrible situation of children being placed in residential homes. As he said, sometimes they are offenders and sometimes not, and they are put in the care of devoted but untrained people. That is only one aspect.
It comes to this. Do we believe that people should be given a thorough professional training? At present one cannot say that that is done but we believe that it should be. If we were allowed to do so in this place, we should
532
rise and stand behind the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and beg the Government to do something about training.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps by introducing this debate my noble friend Lady Faithfull has put tinder to the torch of commitment towards many of our people who are less fortunate than us. Perhaps the debate and the contributions which have been made will serve a permanent constructive purpose of immense value.
The training of social workers is a large subject. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, referred to residential homes for the elderly and the problems of the mentally handicapped. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned the plight of the blind. My noble friend Lady Elles referred to residential care for the young. Every contribution has its own special worth.
I shall concentrate on the cardinal importance of the family as a social entity and on the cohesive services of social workers to the fabric of our society, including the vulnerable elderly.
As all other noble Lords have said, the enhanced training and status of those who attend on families where there are distressed or disturbed relationships has now become a matter of national concern. It lies fair and square within the exclusive remit of the Government, central government. At the outset, a tribute must be paid to the sense of dedication of those who provide the services in difficult, dangerous and emotive situations. Their sense of dedication is not to be called in question.
However, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said—and she is an acknowledged expert with a lifetime of experience—there should be a three-year training with graduate status at first degree level of higher education, funded by central government, no doubt within the allocation of the Department for Employment.
As to the three-year period, it has the support of Lord Clyde, and Lord Justice Butler-Sloss from each side of the Border. It operates in Ireland and is in conformity with EC requirements as regards the interchange of professionals.
As to graduate status, it would confer an ethos of competence, confidence and authority. It is proposed that the present non-graduate programmes should be extended to three years, linking the DipSW to the award of a Bachelor's degree exactly along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
As to the mechanics, the Government will set the standards and methods of training to qualify for the degree. That might perhaps include a course on relevant aspects of law to be given by highly qualified teachers, as suggested by my noble friend. All other aspects of implementation such as recruitment, conditions of employment, and the rendering of the services would remain with the local authority.
As to resources, the cost to the Exchequer of the extra funding for training should surely be regarded as a sound but requisite investment in the future social well-being of our people. Account must be taken of the fact that the broken family sows the seedcorn of crime

533
and truancy. The cost of the public inquiries and the vast cost of litigation funded on all sides by the state has to be taken into account.
The national council, set up—I think, in August—by the NSPCC no doubt will render signal service, always bearing in mind that it is the parents rather than the children who are in need of help and advice. A course of study on parenting and life skills in the national curriculum, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who is not in her place although she would wish to be, could well be of immense value. But when trouble comes it is the foot-soldier on the doorstep, the dedicated social worker, well trained in the state of the art, upon whose help, advice, decisions and actions the well-being of a family in distress must rely.
There is nothing more for me to say other than that the case for increasing their training and expertise and for according status to the social workers has already been made out, even before my noble friend Lady Cox rises to speak. The hope is that the Government will take and implement the appropriate policy decision as soon as possible.
6.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on introducing this debate, which aims to make the case for a third year of professional training for new entrants to professional social worker posts. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, for mentioning residential staff, who are distinctly one of the forgotten groups within the social services.
I ought to declare my interest. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, will perhaps be interested to know that in 1968 I was a student on an experimental three-year diploma course in social work. That course was experimental in that it did not deal only with social work but also looked at community work and attempted to teach it to school leavers. The course predated the formation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Subsequently, I worked in various capacities, eventually specialising in offender services, for in Scotland there is no separate probation service. Therefore I am very interested in the debate. I know that the expectations and duties placed upon social workers have been much expanded since I completed training in 1971. That training involved me in practical placements with 16 different agencies and began to marry theory with practice.
During that period, an attempt was made successfully to bring all social work activities under one roof and so bring to an end the separate services offered by the children's department, the welfare department, the mental health department and the probation department. That remains the current position in Scotland. An attempt was also made to abandon a specialist approach and to bring in generic social workers who were to be competent right across the spectrum. That practice was often resisted by those who had worked in the old departments. But new entrants were quickly given generic caseloads with access to specialist advisers as
534
well as their senior social worker line managers. All that was taking place at a time when professional training itself was not widespread.
Gradually, the generic approach has declined and specialist posts have been created within social work departments. It was recognised that the skills and knowledge base for a generic social worker was too wide and that the clients would be better served by a more focused social worker but one who understood more than just his or her own specialist area.
The rise in the amount of social work legislation has not only brought about rescheduling of priorities for social work departments, but has also caused social workers to learn and relearn the statutory base for their work. The in-service training task is considerable in that respect. That is an area of formal training to which more time needs to be given.
Noble Lords will have heard me say in the recent debate on probation work training that it is important for social work trainees to be given a broad education in the whole social policy area and that they must understand the context in which they work. To that, I would add that they must be given a knowledge of policy formulation and the legislative process so that they would be better prepared for the ever-changing nature of their statutory duties and indeed their non-statutory duties.
The rise in the number of high priority cases in which several different agencies are involved has highlighted the need for management skills, calling case conferences and running them while acting as key workers implementing the subsequent decisions from all the agencies. To be effective that has to be based on a broad knowledge of how other agencies work.
The case for an additional year of training seems to me to be quite clear. It is unfair on everyone to launch into professional practice a social worker who could have been more thoroughly trained and who would have established greater practice experience.
In Scotland, social work education is organised by four training consortia. Several colleges offer the basic two-year central council approved diploma courses and two colleges also offer a three-year degree course. But those degree courses are the so-called two-plus-one courses, where the professional qualification is achieved in two years and an additional year allows for further study. There are proposals to expand the basic qualification course to three years, which must be welcomed, especially as the Scottish social work context is wider. But those proposals can be implemented only when the central council has the authority to increase the training requirement. I must remind noble Lords that the central council is, of course, a federal organisation.
I note with interest and admiration that so far the only part of these islands to have the common sense to extend social work training to three years is the Republic of Ireland. I congratulate the Irish on their wisdom.
Little is gained by undertraining social workers—the professional group through whom we expect an ever-widening range of people to improve the quality of

535
their lives. The decision to extend training to three years would be widely welcomed and should be implemented without delay.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Faithfull on raising this very important and timely topic. It is important and timely because social workers have been given such expanding responsibilities for the provision of care to so many of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Before I embark on a contribution, part of which I fear may sound a little critical, I must pay tribute to many very committed social workers who fulfil their challenging professional responsibilities with dedication and professional competence. I also emphasise that I broadly support my noble friend's plea for more systematic high level education for social work students, with the proviso that it does not become prey to the problems which have characterised some social work courses to which I shall refer.
First, however, the extension of social workers' responsibilities reflects changes in the law and changing trends in our society. The most dramatic extension of their role came with the National Health Service and Community Care Act which gave to social workers and social service departments the primary responsibility for the provision of care for the growing number of people being discharged from long-stay residential institutions into the community. That policy has many merits, especially for the more independent and least vulnerable residents of long-stay institutions. Discharge from institutional care into the community has been a success for many people who have found new independence, more autonomy and enhanced self-esteem and dignity. But for others, including many frail and infirm elderly people suffering from mental illness or handicap, the community can be a very lonely place, and for very dependent people with multiple needs life in a three-bedroomed house in a busy high street can be as institutionalised and even more confined than life in a larger residential community with recreational and occupational facilities on site.
Therefore, there is a challenge for those providing social work training to ensure that social workers are well prepared to take responsibility for these very dependent and very vulnerable people. Alongside these challenges there are many others, imposed by changes in society, such as the needs of children suffering from a family breakdown or from abuse of various kinds, or the multiple problems experienced by ethnic minorities. So there is a strong case for ensuring that social work students understand the diverse needs of those for whom they will be professionally responsible. I agree with my noble friend that a rigorous, comprehensive and professional education is essential.
However, I fear that the provision of an academic degree per se is not enough. The content is crucial, together with the match between theory and practice. Professional education must he teleological—it must be judged by the extent to which it ensures that practitioners are equipped to provide safe, competent,
536
sensitive care. And here I regret that I must express grave concern over the manifest failure of some courses, including those at degree level, to prepare social work students adequately for their professional responsibilities.
These problems are compounded by other sources of confusion in social work education and practice. For example, there is confusion about who are social workers. In some children's and some residential homes, unqualified staff are known as social workers—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the training provisions and what is the range of responsibilities for these untrained social workers? Also, how are these matched to training?
Secondly, there is sometimes confusion about social workers' responsibilities when patients or clients are discharged from National Health Service hospitals into local authority or private sector community care. There have been many reports of problems in ensuring multiprofessional involvement in the preparation of each client's "care package". I hate the phrase "care package" but that is what is meant to be provided for patients being discharged from hospitals into the community. As many of these people have complex health needs, it is essential that their clinical requirements are met, and this must involve health professionals making their contribution to the assessment of needs and the provision of care. Unfortunately, there are many reports that health care professionals are not always adequately represented in discussions. This can have very serious consequences, leading perhaps to literally untold suffering. Social work students need an education which enables them to work more effectively with other professionals and ensures that the contribution of those professionals is appropriately included in all forms of care.
Thirdly, there is a practical problem on some courses in finding appropriate placements for students. Social workers acting as practice teachers have increased case loads with their new responsibilities. Consequently, many are unable to accept students or to provide adequate support and supervision. There is thus a backlog of students waiting for placements. As apprenticeship is an invaluable element in any practical professional training, this must be a serious flaw in any academic course.
Mention of the words "academic course" brings me to my concern over the academic content of many social work courses. For example, a course which I knew very well was offered at the then Polytechnic of North London in the 1970s. Your Lordships may say that that was a long time ago but the social workers who qualified as a result of that course are likely now to he in senior positions—in social work practice or in social work education. The course content was presented in a formidable document approximately one inch thick and full of largely Marxist-oriented courses of macrosociological theories of society. In the entire four years of that course the only reference I saw to mental illness consisted of a two-line entry requiring a critique of contemporary theories of mental illness. There was virtually nothing on the problems of elderly people or

537
of those suffering from mental handicap or chronic illness. Yet all of these people now come within the remit of the responsibility of social workers.
Some of the teaching was bizarre, to say the least: some of the lecturers contributed to and cited publications such as Case Con, a journal of "radical social work", which claimed that mental illness was a product of capitalism and that its cure was to adopt socialism. Incidentally, that was a particularly cruel irony at a time when the Soviet Union was using alleged diagnoses of psychiatric illness to repress and indeed torture political and religious dissidents.
The Polytechnic of North London was not unique. Of course not all the students who qualified from such courses swallowed everything uncritically, but they were still left with a great vacuum of knowledge about mental illness and the reality, say, of the tragedy of the suffering of patients with severe depression or acute psychosis, or about the complex needs of the multi-handicapped. It is therefore not surprising that some social workers were influenced to the extent that they had grave reservations, as a matter of principle as they saw it, about certifying anyone as mentally ill, even when medical staff deemed it necessary to do so for the safety of the patients themselves or of other people.
As I said, that course, which I knew personally and challenged at the time, was offered in the 1970s. But, as I also said, its graduates may now well be in senior positions. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there has been any provision for remedial education to enable them to obtain a rather more rounded view of the nature of the needs of clients and of families coming into their care. Are we sure that all current courses are beyond reproach? I fear not. I share Professor Pinker's concern, described so well by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. In August 1993, just over 18 months ago, Melanie Phillips—hardly a right-wing writer—wrote in the Observer an article documenting continuing symptoms of ideologically dominated social work training. Now the ideology comes more in the form of "politically correct" commitments to various "isms", especially anti-racism and anti-sexism. I must emphasis that I abhor racism and I am intensely critical of injustice perpetrated by sexism; but I can also recognise old Marxist ideology under the guise of much that is being promoted now in the name of these "isms". I also find totally unacceptable any form of censorship on academic campuses in the name of politically correct ideologies. It is in this context that I find Melanie Phillips's critique disturbingly redolent of the ideological travesty of academic courses in social work education which I encountered in the 1970s. She claimed:
"University tutors are abandoning social work teaching because they say they are being forced to teach 'politically correct' attitudes on race and gender in a climate of intimidation and fear. Anti-racist zealots, they say, have captured the social worker's training body, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, which has built into the social work diploma the assumption that society is fundamentally racist and oppressive. The tutors claim that some pupils and staff are being intimidated. The Observer has spoken to several tutors who ask not to be identified for fear of reprisals. One said 'I've had students come to me crying.' Tutors have said to them 'You're white, so you must be racist: confess.'
538
And if they are going to get through the course, they confess … Students' marks, say these tutors, depend on whether their work displays the 'politically correct' attitudes … The tutors say students spend so much time on ideology they end up ill-prepared to deal with people's real problems. One tutor said, 'Students and tutors who question the CCETSW's assumptions run the risk of being labelled racist.' That's not education, but indoctrination".
I could have written those words 20 years ago from my own experiences in social sciences. It grieves me that they can be written today.
I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made some attempt to require social work education establishments to move away from such indoctrination and eliminate political ideology from social work education, but the revised Document 30 that she commends is not a real solution. Many concerned with social work education have called it a fiasco.
I conclude by urging my noble friend Lady Faithful] to appreciate that if she succeeds in her commendable objective of enhancing the length and status of social work courses it will not automatically improve the quality of education or practice. I hope that she will use the high esteem in which she is rightly held to influence the content of social work education so that practitioners will be adequately prepared for their new and expanding responsibilities.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my authority for intervening briefly in this debate is, first, that I was involved for some 10 years in validating social work and other similar courses in the polytechnic sector; and, secondly, that I had the honour of initiating a debate in your Lordships' House on 27th January 1993 on the training of staff in children's homes. I should like to pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to all the good social workers who do extremely difficult work in what is an increasingly difficult area. I think that that tribute is all the more deserved, because I feel absolutely sure that they succeed in spite of their training rather than because of it.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, and I believe nearly all other noble Lords, promoted the idea that the present two-year courses should be expanded to three-year courses. I am afraid that I have to disagree with that, unless something can be done about the quality of existing courses. When preparing for the debate two years ago I had to have quite a detailed look at many of the courses that were around then. I was this evening most heartened to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, had to say. He suggested that the time might have come to abolish the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. In our debate in 1993 I had some harsh things to say about CCETSW and its courses, which as far as I know have not been seriously challenged since. As I have had occasion to remark to your Lordships before, it seems to me that when we look at teacher training in the normal school system we look at the soil in which the roots of British state education feed. So it is with social work when we look at the courses validated by CCETSW.
In 1993 I made two suggestions of which I would now like to remind my noble friend the Minister. I ask for her view upon them now. The first is that if anyone

539
thinks that I or the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, or my noble friend Lady Cox, exaggerate the poor quality of CCETSW's courses, an appropriate sample should be validated by a small group of perhaps five or seven suitably qualified people. The majority of the members of this group should be health care professionals, assisted by at least one proven manager. Social workers and social scientists should be in a clear minority. This validating panel should be free to talk to students, who would have to be offered convincing protection against victimisation at their exams or in their subsequent search for work. I do not think that this would be an expensive exercise. I hope that the Government will consider it now, even if they did not consider it was suitable two years ago.
My second suggestion is that I remain sure that the group's findings will justify recommendation No. 62 of the Warner Report, and that the Diploma in Social Work should be abandoned in favour of a new diploma targeted very much more practically. In that respect, it is very encouraging to hear what my noble friend Lady Elles has had to say about the Caldecott Community's courses and their practical element. I feel sure that that is the right route to go, and I very much hope that the Government will do everything they can to expand that kind of initiative.
I shall listen with interest to what my noble friend has to say. She may tell me that CCETSW has changed its spots in the intervening two years. Personally, I will need some convincing.
I end by saying that until a clear unbiased professional examination of our social work courses takes place, and until the result of that examination is made available for wide public debate, there is absolutely no point in making the courses any longer or throwing any more money at them. As the Warner Report so wisely said:
"A common reaction to a report such as ours is to assume that nothing can be done without additional resources being made available. We are not convinced that this is so".
Nor am I. I very much hope that my noble friend can convince me that I am wrong.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as I expected, put forward a very strong case for increasing the professional training of social workers to three years of graduate status. What I can say is more a cheer from the sidelines than a critical commentary, which we have had from the last two speakers. There is no doubt that qualified social workers and probation officers have to take on additional responsibilities today both because of changes in society, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have mentioned, and as a result of recent legislation. That has been spelt out by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and other speakers. I do not need to list recent Acts which have added to the workload of social workers on top of what is already a very heavy load. Often, they deal with some of the most deprived as well as the most disturbed people in the community.
540
I should like to echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about the problems and difficulties faced by social workers. They do not get many thanks when they succeed, but they get a lot of stick when things go wrong. That is rather different from the profession which I have been very lucky to be part of: medicine. In medicine one often manages to make people feel better quite quickly, and people express their gratitude. I used to get such a good supply of whisky every Christmas that it lasted me right the way through to the following year. That does not mean to say that I drank a bottle a day!
As a GP, I have worked together with many social workers and probation officers. Usually we have both been involved with families in which children have been at risk or with mentally ill patients where decisions have had to be taken about compulsory admission. I take the noble Baroness, Lady Cox's, point that sometimes social workers resist the idea of compulsory admission perhaps more than they might. On the other hand, they are the only people who stand up for the patient, and I respect them for it. In some cases in which I have been involved the social worker's decision has proved to be right and the patient has got well at home without having to go to hospital.
I have also had many links with probation officers with equivalent training, dealing with a variety of patients who have had brushes with the law. For many years I was a visiting medical officer to a reception centre which took in children who were in need of emergency social services care. On this point I very much echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Murray about the need for the motivation, background and personality of workers in residential care to be carefully assessed and for their training to be better, as the noble Baroness suggested.
Although I have been very much impressed by the sense of responsibility and concern for their clients that individual social workers have shown, I have not always been quite so impressed by the depth of their knowledge or the wisdom of their decisions. I certainly have not been impressed with the bureaucracy of certain social services departments. I have sometimes sympathised with patients who have felt that social workers were acting more as another arm of the law rather than being their defender.
However much training a social worker or other professional —for instance, a doctor—receives, it is always possible to make mistakes and to get on the wrong foot with a client, particularly when he or she may be of a difficult or manipulative personality. Good additional training increases the skill and understanding of social workers. That minimises the chance of failure in communication. People in difficulties are quite often extremely hard to help, a point made by other noble Lords. That is part of their problem. The ability to stand outside the immediate issues, to show concern but not to be patronising, to be involved but at the same time detached, are not easy skills to acquire. But appropriate training can make a big difference and the additional year proposed will allow the additional breadth and time for reflection that is needed, as well as the detailed training in the legal aspects of their work, which the

541
noble Baroness suggested could be included. I hope that the Minister will take the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, very seriously. It is based, as other noble Lords have said, on a long and hard working lifetime of experience in social work, for which she is enormously and deservedly respected.
The noble Baroness called for the creation of a General Social Services Council. I very much feel that that is a desirable aim, just as I should like to see a General Teachers Council in the same category as the General Medical Council, which performs a very useful educational and disciplinary role. I wish to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and ask whether social work has yet achieved a sufficient academic body of knowledge or body of research to constitute the background for creating such a council. I hope that the Minister will refer to that when she replies to the debate.
It is probable that the Minister will argue that her noble friend's case is a good one but that we cannot afford it. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that this would he largely local authority expenditure, but nevertheless the money eventually will have to come from central government, because local government has no money to spare at the moment to increase expenditure on its social work training. Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer that point as well.
It is perfectly true that there must be cost implications—less so for the graduates who will be excused taking a three-year course and will have to take only a two-year course because they have already shown their academic capacity. In my view, the additional cost will be justified, whoever provides it, for several reasons. First, the British social work qualifications will have to be brought into line with European Commission requirements for the interchange of professionals. The Republic of Ireland has already done that. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to this point. It is not a requirement as such, I agree, but, as she said, the three-year course will be needed for doing equivalent work in many countries in the European Union.
The second reason for increasing training is the added load of recent legislation. The Acts concerned have been listed by a number of noble Lords. The third and perhaps the most important reason for increasing training is that skilled work may well involve savings later. That is so with regard to making good assessments for those going into community care from National Health Service institutions. It also applies to the probation service, where skilled work with offenders results in a reduction of reoffending compared with custodial sentences. In social work, skilled work with families may prevent children having to be taken into care. We believe that any further separation of the training of probation officers from that of social workers would be quite retrograde. That was the overwhelming opinion of a large number of speakers in the debate on the probation service in your Lordships' House on 5th April, just before the Easter Recess.
542
Although it has been severely pilloried today, I should like to quote some remarks from the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. It carried out a review of the Diploma in Social Work in February. The council states:
"The…review has demonstrated the extent of the core knowledge required by social workers and probation officers and the importance of a rigorous, analytical and reflective approach to enable them to make difficult judgments about complex situations".
I do not see anything particularly Marxist in that. The quotation continues:
"Of prime importance for social workers and probation officers is all the relevant and new legislation, which gives them powers and responsibilities. Social workers and probation officers deal with some of the most difficult, damaged and sometimes dangerous members of society and their practice needs to be bounded by the law, informed by research, applied to and drawn from practice.
The Government took the decision in 1988 that the professional social work qualification should be confined to two years…Since then, there have been major developments in legislation, which have greatly increased the responsibilities of social workers; in particular three major statutes affecting the three major areas of service provision".
The noble Baroness made a plea for a strengthening of an important part of our social fabric. It may cost a few million pounds but it will be a valuable long-term investment. It is very gratifying that a call for such long-term investment is coming from the Government side of the House—though from the Back Benches. We have become too used to short-term thinking from the Government Front Bench over the past decade and a half. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct that in her reply to her noble friend's Motion.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I believe that even the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the only other professional in this field here tonight, will agree with me that there is no Member of your Lordships' House better qualified, more knowledgeable or astute to introduce this debate than my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Those of us who have been involved in social work (albeit in my case some time ago) have long been admirers of my noble friend. She is indeed a legend in the land and we acknowledge her supremacy in this field.
I believe that this has been a very worthwhile and interesting debate. I have listened carefully to what all your Lordships have said, and I shall discuss many of the suggestions made with my ministerial colleagues and officials in the department. Bearing in mind the anecdote of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, perhaps this is the moment at which I should tear up my speech but, sadly, I do not have that sort of courage.
As regards the training of social workers, the Government believe that it is essential to establish the correct balance between generic social work and specialist expertise. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the 1968 report of Lord Seebohm. He foresaw,
"the possibility of workers al basic field level developing interests in particular aspects of the work".

543
He also went on to say,
"Specialisation will be necessary above this level, not least to help in the advancement of knowledge".
We have followed this pattern in developing the training we have today.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, reminded us too, with the greatest clarity, as did my noble friend Lady Liles, of the ever-increasing pressures on individuals and families and how essential it is that social workers and other staff are equipped to deal with the problems of people who come to them for help. It is right to be reminded that personal social services are being delivered in a social and demographic context which has undergone substantial changes over the past two decades. For example, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding reminded us in another debate, when Her Majesty came to the throne in 1952 she sent 270 telegrams to people on their 100th birthday. Last year she sent 2,923. I believe that they are now tele-messages. People are not only living longer but, as a consequence the number living alone has almost doubled in the past 20 years. As many of your Lordships will know, divorce rates are up while marriage rates are down. In the past 20 years the number of marriages has decreased by a quarter but the number of divorces has more than doubled. All this puts pressure on families and increases the chances that some families will not be able to cope and will turn to social services for help.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway mentioned the NSPCC commission of inquiry and speculated that it might make recommendations on the need to ensure that parents are helped to improve their parenting skills. The Government believe in supporting families rather than undermining them. An example of this is the Department of Health's £1.5 million family support initiative. Key elements of the programme have been to encourage self-help; to develop a partnership with families and to develop support through a network of helpful information and advice. I can assure my noble friend that we look forward to the results of the NSPCC commission. We shall continue to work with families and not seek to undermine them.
Although noble Lords have agreed that social workers should not see their role solely as agents of social change, we should also acknowledge, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that social workers deal with some of the most vulnerable and difficult people in society. Sometimes there is a misconception among the general public that some social workers are too young, idealistic and under-trained for this very difficult task. But that is actually far from the truth. Over the past 30 years the proportion of field staff who are qualified has risen from 38 per cent. to over 90 per cent., with almost all team leaders now being qualified. The average age for those qualifying is 35, so contrary to public belief social work is in fact a mature person's career.
However, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and my noble friend Lady Cox about political correctness. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Pearson will be pleased to learn of the review of the diploma which we have asked the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to undertake. We wish to see a move away from the perception that
544
CCETSW is an organisation that concentrates on certain issues only. In future it will be seen as an organisation that prepares social workers to deal with the needs of all clients in a practical and effective manner.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend give way on that point? Is there really any point in asking CCETSW to carry out this survey? Surely we need some objective outside body to give confidence to the result?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that we should await the results of the report that CCETSW produces. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but I believe that he will also acknowledge that CCETSW has a new chairman, that it has changed, and that it is now a different organisation.
Specialist social workers are certainly needed for specific but complex and sometimes intractable problems. That requires expertise born of knowledge and practical experience. But clients who need social workers need them to work with them in partnership on all their needs. I could not hut be impressed, like other Members of your Lordships' House by the eloquent and persuasive case made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin on the needs of those who are visually impaired. Indeed, I visited the centre in Brighton the other day and was enormously impressed by the work which is going on. I understand the points he made particularly on the somewhat narrow use of the training support programme. That is something I wish to discuss with my colleagues.
Since 1991 the Government have developed and resourced a training strategy which has four objectives. These are, first, to improve the quality of basic qualifying courses; secondly, to increase the number of people qualified; thirdly, to increase the training opportunities for existing staff; and, fourthly, to increase post-qualifying and management development training.
We undertook a five-year programme for introducing the Diploma in Social Work as the unified professional qualification. Over a rather shorter period, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has been working to establish a vigorous post-qualifying framework. This will ensure that we have expert practitioners in both the field and leadership positions.
However, we have had some concerns about the content of the diploma. The legislative context for contemporary social work has changed with the introduction of new policies mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, notably the Children Act and the National Health Service and Community Care Act. It is essential that social workers have a thorough knowledge of the new arrangements. We therefore insisted that the central council reviewed the diploma to secure its continued relevance today and to ensure that it keeps pace with developments in best practice. The changes to the diploma mean that all students are taught the relevant law for their own area of practice and are assessed on their competence. In this way employers will be able to have confidence in the newly qualified staff they employ.

545
Regardless of the area of social work in which students practise, they will all need to be knowledgeable about the laws under which social workers operate. They will need to be able to demonstrate in their practice placement that they not only know the law but how it works in reality. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is so right when he says that no professional can hope to continue in effective practice without keeping up to date. We agree that it is essential that all professionals undertake continual professional development. I stress to my noble friends Lady Elles, Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that our model of social work training is to have a two-year basic course followed by post-qualifying education and training especially when questions of life or liberty are in question. Although I accept that that does not go all the way, I believe that it goes some way to meeting their aspirations.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, after gaining a qualification, another qualification is taken? I do not follow what the noble Baroness has told us.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a two-year basic course followed then by modules which are specialist courses. For instance, if one is doing mental health work then one needs the extra qualification to become an approved social worker in this area. It is the same model which has been introduced very successfully for nursing under the Project 2000 scheme.
It is important that employers invest in the post-qualifying development of their staff. The central council agreed in 1992 to two levels of post-qualifying awards which are modular-based, and that is what I was saying. They can be acquired over a number of years. These awards will become available in the next year or so and should deliver expert and competent practitioners, but they are not in place yet. The scheme is just coming on-stream.
We have had concerns about the speed with which the post-qualifying framework has been implemented. We have therefore asked the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to look at the framework, as a matter of some concern, to see how access to the awards can be speeded up.
Formal learning is one source for developing social work practice and it is important, but another essential part is supervision in the workplace. This supervision is not just about the management of work, but about what goes on in social work practice. It is a crucial element in developing both the person and the practice. In the days when my noble friend Lady Faithfull was a director, I feel sure that staff supervision was "normal" and was a key reason why her department was so outstanding. In recent years, however, that practice seems to have lapsed. We have therefore asked the National Institute for Social Work to start a programme of work around the theme of managing and developing practice expertise.
Both my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, spoke in favour of a general social services council to regulate social work. We are giving detailed consideration to the proposal. To help us
546
in this, we have commissioned two studies to look into possible standards for all those working in personal social services. The reports are due very shortly and we shall consult fully on any potential standards that emerge.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raised the issue of student loans. I am afraid that I do not know the answer because the Department for Education is responsible. However, I shall write to the noble Lady. She can rest assured that the UK system of a two-year basic professional qualification for social work, supplemented by post-qualifying education and training, does not put our social workers at a disadvantage compared with those in some parts of Europe where there are three-year courses.
As social work is not a regulated profession in the UK, it falls outside the scope of the EU directive. Also as an unregulated profession, the recognition of diplomas is not necessary for social workers seeking to practise in another member state. All that is required is information on the qualifications obtained by social workers wishing to take up employment in another member state. However, my noble friend Lady Elles is right that despite mutual recognition of qualifications, a member state would require a separate assessment of the knowledge of its law and language to establish whether a social worker from another member state was competent to practise. I shall certainly take my noble friend's advice and study the training schemes in other countries because however good we are—and we are good—I do not believe that we have a monopoly on wisdom and understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the Probation Service. As we had a very full debate on that in your Lordships' House on 5th April, I shall not go into those issues tonight.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull has pressed hard for a three-year degree course for social workers. As she will know, similar proposals were put to the Government in 1987. These were rejected by the then Minister for Health.
There are still some good reasons for not changing the present system which is still new in its entirety. I shall cite four of those reasons. First, post-qualifying training and development allows employers to determine what specialist training staff require in the sure knowledge that there is a solid foundation within the Diploma in Social Work. This allows greater flexibility to employers and builds upon local needs.
Secondly, social workers comprise between 10 to 15 per cent. of the statutory social services workforce. The remainder are care workers of one type or another: home helps, residential and day care staff, and so on. The Government have a responsibility to consider the needs of all the staff in social services and to consider not only social workers but the training needs of all those involved in the care of vulnerable people.
Thirdly, to go down a compulsory three-year college-based route for social work qualifying training would seem to go against the trend towards work-based learning. The policy of a two-year diploma followed by post-qualifying training means that the expertise gained after initial qualification is a mixture of both practical

547
experience and knowledge. This is what we need in social work: a thorough integration of experience gained from the workplace and the knowledge gained from academic work.
Finally, there is the question of cost. In 1987 the central council estimated that the cost would be in the order of £40 million—a substantial sum of money then and considerably more at today's prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway were right to raise the subject of resources. It is a question of priorities. Since 1987, we have introduced the training support programme—a specific grant—which now stands at almost £35 million covering the whole social services workforce and which supports almost £50 million of expenditure by local authorities on training and development. In addition, we have made £10 million available through the central council. This means that Government are spending well in excess of the £40 million that might have been spent on creating a three-year training course for social workers. This funding benefits all the social services staff—not just the 10 to 15 per cent. of social workers.
We believe that a two-year basic qualifying course is the right approach providing that it is supplemented by post-qualifying development. The department has invested heavily in the post-qualifying framework and is expecting the central council to implement it speedily.
I cannot leave this debate without saying a few words about the majority of staff in social services; namely, the large numbers of domiciliary care and residential care staff who deliver services to users day after day. Research has suggested that domiciliary care staff are in touch with almost 10 per cent. of people of pensionable age and that most elderly people who are housebound are in touch with the home help service.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, spoke with great insight about children in residential care. I know that he supports the 1991 Utting Report which found that not only is the task of residential care staff more challenging than ever before, but also that a substantial proportion of heads of residential homes for children were not professionally qualified.
That issue was raised also by my noble friend Lady Cox in her eloquent and hard-hitting contribution. My noble friend's views and those of the noble Lord were endorsed by Sir William Utting who recommended that all heads of children's homes should be professionally qualified and that up to one-third of care staff should also have a professional qualification.
I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Government have accepted both recommendations and introduced the residential child care initiative as part of the training support programme. That has made available sufficient places on courses for all the unqualified heads of children's homes, but it leaves to the discretion of employers the proportion of care staff who need to be professionally qualified. The training support programme provides funding for secondments to diploma courses for those staff. The noble Lord is right that the people in charge of such homes are very special people who need special training to carry out their important work.
548
Your Lordships will know that the Government have been seeking to improve the skills of the whole workforce through the development of national vocational qualifications. In social care, there are now over 20 awards covering not only staff who work with children under eight but also staff who work with adults. New awards will soon be available for those staff who work with children over eight, including residential child care staff.
My noble friend Lady Elles explained eloquently the skilled and professional work that is carried out by the Caldecott Community, near Ashford in Kent. That community is fortunate lo have people of such calibre on its board of trustees. Its training course for mature students is something that we are watching with great interest. We believe that it is a worthwhile development and we wish all concerned well with that new venture.
In conclusion, the question raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull is an important one. It is essential that we have social workers who are able to deal confidently and competently with the problems presented by children and their parents as well as those with mental illnesses, a visual or sensory handicap, elderly people and others who use social services.
Some may see the question of three years for the basic training of social workers as an ideal and, if money was no object, perhaps we would all agree. However, as your Lordships will, I hope, agree, the Government must pay attention to the needs of all social services staff taking into account the available resources. It is essential that all staff are equipped to carry out their work. To this end, we have introduced and maintained the training support programme which is very popular with local authorities. It not only funds particular training according to local needs but also helps social services departments to adopt a planned approach to training.
The Government will continue to make their contribution to the funding of the training and development of all social services staff, including social workers. Indeed, I hope that I have made it clear just how substantial the level of funding to social services training is this year.
I agree with my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lady Elles and with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that social workers are often unheralded and unknown. Much of what they do is often unseen. In fact, we could say that the aim of social workers is to make themselves unnecessary. But, alas, they are necessary, and we need to hear more about their good work and ensure that with good training they are equipped to fulfil their difficult professional role.
We expect a lot from social workers. Sometimes we may expect too much. We need to be realistic about what they can do, and we need to support them with training that is relevant, right and of a high quality. That is what we are currently seeking to do.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, first, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I am deeply grateful to them. I have had letters from six other noble Lords who wished to take part in the debate and who would

549
have supported the Motion, but who were unable to be with us. I thank also my noble friend the Minister for her, as always, charming, good and carefully thought out reply. Sadly, I have to say that I could not agree with it, and I think she knows that. All of us, including noble Lords who were unable to be here but who would have liked to have taken part, will be disappointed that my noble friend does not feel that the Government can support a three-year course, something we have all recommended and for which recommendations have come from almost every university, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the British Association of Social Workers. I am sad that the Government take the view that it could not be.
A two-year course with a post-qualifying course was debated in 1987. My noble friend the Minister said that we had not yet got under way with such courses. But that was seven years ago. The post-qualifying course may be working in some parts of the country, but it is not working throughout the country for the simple reason I gave earlier—that the local authorities do not have the resources to send people on the post-qualifying courses or to appoint staff to take their places during that year. So the post-qualifying courses are not working. I am afraid that is no good my noble friend the Minister saying—I am sure she will forgive me for saying this—that we are getting such courses under way. Seven years is a long time, so I am sad that the Government feel that they cannot support the Motion, particularly as I believe that such courses would be cost-effective in the long run, as I have said previously.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and my noble friend Lady Cox, spoke in stringent terms about the courses. I am glad to hear some stringency enter the debate. That is very healthy. But I must point out that the HEFC has looked into the training courses this year. It found that 20 per cent. of the courses were excellent and completed innovative, practical links with day-to-day social work, and that the had courses should not distort views about some of the good courses that we have.
As some noble Lords have said, in the past CETSW has put out some unwise political statements. That is not the case today. If I were to have a dream which came true it would be that there was to be a three-year course. I hope that the Government will take the view that the Department of Health took over the Children Act 1989, and issue guidelines. The Department of Health's guidelines on the implementation of the Children Act 1989 are splendid. I hope that the Government will issue similar guidelines on the training of social workers. I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and my noble friend Lady Elles spoke about the training of residential social workers. The children we have in residential care are the most difficult, the most disruptive and the most delinquent. Their residential social workers deserve a good training equal to that of field social workers. Field social workers and residential social workers must work in partnership.
550
My final point was not covered by my noble friend the Minister. She usually covers every point, and we greatly admire her position on the Front Bench for the Department of Health, but she did not mention the fact that social workers are equal colleagues, sometimes taking the major responsibility with doctors—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will understand this—with teachers and health visitors, and yet they are not trained as highly as those colleagues with whom they work in partnership.
I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I would point out to my noble friend the Minister that there has not just been full support here for the Motion but there has been full support for the proposal throughout the country. Perhaps she will sleep on that tonight and think differently come the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me particular pleasure to move this Second Reading, because it is one of my first acts as one of the two joint presidents of the newly formed Association of London Government. The ALG, as we shall have to learn to call it, was formed by the merger of the two associations that previously represented the boroughs in London (the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities). I am sure that everyone who has an interest in seeing London maintain and enhance its status as a world city will applaud the initiative of the leaders of the LBA and the ALA in overcoming their differences and joining together to form a united voice for London local government.
I regard it as a great honour to have been chosen as one of the association's founding presidents. It is good to see in his place—I was going to call him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, my fellow joint president, who will be winding up the debate. I hope that this will be the first of many opportunities for us to work together to ensure that the voice of London local government is heard. Perhaps I should say that I have had a message from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who fully supports the Bill and has sent his apologies that for reasons of local government duties he is unable to be with us this evening.
The Bill is the sixth Private Bill to be promoted by Westminster City Council on behalf of the other London authorities. In common with all the preceding Bills, the process was overseen by the LBA and the ALA, and of course it is now the new association which takes on that

551
responsibility. It follows in a long tradition of London local government Bills by seeking a number of new powers to enable London's local authorities to face the many and disparate challenges that have arisen with the passage of time. They are cases in respect of which central government are unwilling to find parliamentary time for national legislation. I shall return to that aspect in a moment.
The provisions of the Bill range widely from new powers to improve London's worsening air quality to powers to control the proliferation of car boot sales. I suspect, however, that noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate may be interested in particular in the air quality provisions. I shall later concentrate on Part II, which deals with that matter.
Part I sets out the Short Title and the major definitions. It also contains an "appointed day" clause so that boroughs can choose whether they wish to make use of the part of the Bill relating to car boot sales. Part II deals with vehicle emissions, to which I shall return in a moment. Part III will give London authorities powers to enforce bus lanes by using remote cameras in order to relieve the police of that responsibility and allowing them to concentrate on their other more pressing priorities. If Part III is passed into law it will mean that local authorities will take over the responsibility of pursuing and issuing penalty charges to those who are photographed in bus lanes in breach of regulations. The Bill provides that this particular offence should be decriminalised. The boroughs will be able to issue fixed penalty charges which will he a civil debt.
The proper enforcement of bus lanes is a high priority for the London boroughs which are working together to construct a 300 mile pan-London bus priority network. That must have the support of all who wish to see a growth and improvement in public transport in order to reduce congestion on our roads. The network will reduce the delays experienced by buses and will make them a more attractive option for travellers. Although the technology is still being developed, I believe that the ultimate intention is that the buses themselves will carry the cameras to detect drivers entering bus lanes illegally. I suggest that that may well prove to be a most condign deterrent and much more effective than the occasional copper lurking behind a lamp-post, much of which we see in this area today.
Part IV will make available to London boroughs the new system for licensing car boot sales. The boroughs do not wish to ban such sales because they often provide a valuable service for residents and help voluntary bodies to raise funds. However, there have been problems in some areas. Under existing legislation, a number of boroughs in outer London have had difficulty in controlling large car boot sales held in unsuitable areas. The Bill will give the boroughs the power to require organisers to make suitable arrangements to prevent excessive road congestion, provide sufficient parking and control litter. The boroughs will have the power to refuse a licence to a promoter who has not complied with the conditions on previous occasions or if the organisers do not satisfy them that they have made proper arrangements to deal with these matters.
552
Part V contains amendments to existing entertainments licensing legislation to bring the system in London into line with that operating in the rest of the country. This part enshrines present practice in statute and is included in the Bill as a tidying-up exercise primarily in order to make civil servants happy. I am always pleased if we can make civil servants happy and in this case the part is included at the specific request of the Home Office.
However, the boroughs' altruism in allowing the Home Office to use this Bill to promote its legislation has not been reciprocated. Despite repeated requests, the Home Office has refused to make any contribution towards the costs of promoting the Bill and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will relay this gripe to their right honourable friends in the Home Office. It is not a good precedent. If a government department wishes to use a Private Bill, it should help the promoters.
Part VI contains a number of technical, miscellaneous provisions, including a power for boroughs to deal with excessive emissions from such things as tar boilers and generators on the street; and an amendment to allow Tower Hamlets council to be included in the list of boroughs participating in the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill, which is now in another place. If any noble Lord wishes to know more about that Bill, I shall do my best to explain it.
I turn to Part II of the Bill, which seems to have generated the most excitement. Your Lordships will remember that during the passage of the Environment Bill I sought to persuade the Government that they should include in that Bill a general, national power for local authorities to undertake the kerbside testing of vehicles suspected of polluting the air. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Ullswater is present on the Front Bench, although his noble friend Lord Goschen will reply to the debate. Although the amendments that I moved attracted support from all parts of the House, my noble friend on the Front Bench found himself unable to give any commitment that these powers would find their way into the Bill that is currently in another place.
So, we have to return to this London Local Authorities Bill to try to secure the necessary powers but, of course, limited to the London boroughs. I have no doubt that it would be very much better if the powers were national and contained in general legislation. However, only this week my noble friend Lord Ullswater confirmed to me that, although the Government are wholly sympathetic with the principle underlying the amendments on emission testing, which I brought forward, they are still some way from being in a position to bring forward government amendments during the progress of the Environment Bill.
In a letter to me dated 11th April, my noble friend Lord Ullswater stated:
"However, both your amendments and similar clauses in the London Local Authorities Bill"—
it applies to this Bill as it did to the general Bill—
"raise complex problems in relation to both charging regimes and the allocation of police resources".

553
One of the advantages of having been in Government is that one can recognise the code. In this case, the code is perfectly clear; my noble friend is having serious problems with his honourable friends at the Treasury and the Home Office.
Traffic in London is now the biggest cause of poor air quality. It is also clear that a substantial proportion of that is emitted from a small number of badly maintained cars which make a wholly disproportionate contribution to the deteriorating air quality in London. I am told that the RAC gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee in another place to the effect that 10 per cent. of vehicles were responsible for more than half the emissions of carbon dioxide from vehicles. Those vehicles are the "gross polluters", and Part II of the Bill is designed specifically to deal with them.
It has been said—and it was said in our debates on the Environment Bill—that the police already have these powers. However, it is widely recognised that the police have other priorities. It is simply not realistic to expect the police to carry out the very specific testing and enforcement that is needed if these polluters are to be taken off the road. The answer is that the local authorities have the interest and the motivation, and they should have the powers, to do that and so free the police to get on with their more important responsibility of fighting crime.
In Part II, the Bill provides that the local authorities may stop and test vehicles to see whether a vehicle meets the MoT emission standard. If the vehicle fails the test, the owner will be liable for a fixed penalty charge and will be required to remedy the defect that is causing the excessive emissions. Failure to produce within 56 days a certificate signed by an approved examiner showing that the vehicle now complies with the standard will make the owner liable to a criminal fine of up to £5,000. If we wish to be serious about air pollution we must take these stringent powers.
Your Lordships will recognise that the first stages of this process are, in effect, decriminalised, with fines being replaced by a civil fixed penalty charge, the proceeds of which can then be recycled to cover the costs of the enforcement of the work.
In Schedule 1 the Bill also makes provision for an adjudication system similar to that recently introduced for the new borough parking scheme. The intention of that is to make sure that the courts are not clogged up by motorists challenging the increased enforcement necessary to achieve cleaner air. Evidence has reached me that that has proved to be a very effective and acceptable system for parking and there is no reason why it should not be equally acceptable in this regard.
So far, so good, and I do not believe that any of that is unduly controversial. But I now turn to what is certainly controversial; namely, the stopping power. When I moved amendments to the Environment Bill last month, they did not include a stopping power. However, when the Bill was deposited, it did include a power for local authority officers to stop vehicles on the highway to test their exhaust emissions. Objections to the stopping power are the basis of the sole petition which has been lodged against the Bill jointly by the RAC, the AA, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage
554
Association. I note the names of those noble Lords who are to speak in the debate and I have no doubt that we shall hear their arguments deployed eloquently this evening.
Of course, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about that particular provision. In turn, I must ask noble Lords to recognise the reality that those vehicle emissions provisions would he entirely ineffective without the stopping power. As I have said, the police already have powers to deal with vehicle emissions but simply do not use them because they have other priorities. If we want a local authority to have power to test vehicles but leave them to rely on the police making sufficient uniformed manpower available to let them use it, it will be a classic case of willing the ends without willing the means.
I believe that that measure needs to be thoroughly examined when the Bill goes into Committee. If the Petitioners, who clearly want to see the offending vehicles removed from the road—and I look forward to hearing confirmation of that this evening—can provide some solution which both meets their objections and achieves the main purpose of Part II, that might well be the way forward. However, the London boroughs, having reconsidered the matter in the light of the petition, believe that they must continue to press for the local authority stopping power. They do not relish the prospect and they recognise the concerns about people other than policemen stopping traffic. Perhaps the Government can help: if the Treasury can be persuaded to let the proceeds of the charges go in part to paying for additional police manpower to be deployed solely on stopping vehicles, leaving the local authority testers with the task of carrying out the subsequent testing and enforcement, then that could be a way forward which meets the anxieties of those worried about the stopping power as well as those who are to pay for the necessary police activity to carry it out.
Part II of the Bill also seeks to give the London boroughs powers to deal with the drivers of vehicles who sit in them for long periods leaving their engines running. I had an example of that the other evening when a hotel lobby was filled with fumes because the driver of the bus outside refused to turn off the engine. That is quite unacceptable. Local authority environment officers should have the power to order that the engines be switched off.
The aim of reducing pollution by targeting the so-called "gross polluters" is extremely important. There has been a great deal of anxiety about air quality in London and other major cities and its impact on respiratory disease. I have seen that within my own family. This Bill attempts to tackle the problem. Westminster City Council estimates that increased enforcement of vehicle emission standards could reduce emissions within its area by up to 25 per cent., which is an extremely valuable prize to seek. The power to issue fixed penalties reflects the widely recognised principle that the polluter should pay. The power to recycle the penalties to pay the costs of enforcement is equally sound in principle.

555
I commend the Bill to the House. No doubt, the points at issue between the promoters and the petitioners will be argued over during the Committee stage, but I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to that stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his very clear exposition of what is contained in the Bill. Also, I congratulate him on his appointment as joint president of the new combined association. I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on his joint presidency of that organisation.
My noble friend is quite right to say that I shall confine my remarks solely to Part II. I have absolutely no objection nor any views whatever on the other parts of the Bill.
In making the case for opposing Part II, I should like to state firmly from the outset that I support the general intentions of the Bill as outlined by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Boding. There is no argument about the importance of tackling the air pollution caused by vehicle emissions. That is a problem in many of our towns and cities, in places with higher pollution levels than London. It is clear that we do need measures to ensure that vehicle emission standards are properly and fairly enforced. The Government have, of course, already taken steps to tighten enforcement. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, the disproportionate effect of gross polluters—the 10 to 15 per cent. of vehicles which cause 50 per cent. of air traffic pollution—means targeted enforcement during the year between MOT tests is necessary, and I fully support it.
Although I agree with the spirit of the aims which lie behind this part of the Bill, there are practical considerations within it which I do not think are acceptable. I would like briefly to set out my main objections to the Bill as it stands.
First, we should be sure that new legislation is really needed. There are already laws in force under construction and use regulations which provide the necessary legal framework and sanctions for tackling polluting vehicles. Enforcement is not happening on a large scale because there are insufficient resources available to effectively tackle the problem on our streets. But shortage of money does not mean the existing regulations are wrong and that we necessarily have to scrap them and start all over again. I am not against new legislation, but the real issue is how to find the resources to enforce the law, and if there is to be new law, it must be carefully drafted, and consistent with the many related pieces of road traffic legislation already on the statute book.
Moreover, the existing construction and use regulations apply across Britain. Traffic emissions are a national problem and should be dealt with on a national basis, rather than just in London. This Bill would allow for the establishment within London of 32 separate emissions testing operations which, in theory anyway,
556
could set 32 different penalty charge levels, connected only by a general code of practice. So not only would there by no nationwide standards for the operation of emissions testing, but, within the capital itself, penalty fine levels and operational guidelines would be decided by each individual borough, which I believe is unacceptable.
If the argument of the London boroughs is that emissions enforcement would be more effectively controlled and financed by local authorities than by the police and vehicles inspectorate, then surely that argument applies equally to our other great cities. It would therefore surely be preferable for national legislation to be introduced to deal with the issue. The Government have intimated that they might bring forward legislation of their own when the Environment Bill is debated in the Commons and I urge the Minister to take that course. I was disappointed to hear the quotation from the Minister's letter to my noble friend.
I now wish to deal with the most controversial section of the Bill: the proposal which would give local authority employees the power to stop vehicles on the public highway. At present this power can be exercised only by a police officer in uniform, under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1968. There are very good reasons why that is so. Police officers have an authority which is recognised and respected by the public. The police are perceived to have the right to order your car to stop, in the same way that when motorists see a flashing blue light on a police vehicle they know they should move out of the way and let it pass. We must not allow the authority of our police to be diluted by giving away some of their fundamental and basic powers.
There is another important consideration to take on board. The proposal raises issues of safety and security, particularly for lone women drivers or drivers responsible for valuable loads. Anyone who has read the news stories of car-jacking and of criminals who steal valuables by smashing the windows of cars which are stopped at traffic lights or are stuck in traffic jams, will know that personal safety while on the move is a very real concern to many motorists. Many of those attacks occur in broad daylight. Of course, I am not suggesting that the councils' monitoring units would pose a threat, although motorists may well be bewildered, angry or frightened at being ordered to stop by a council official in a yellow jacket and a strange uniform; or, indeed, not even in a uniform at all.
Giving those officials the authority to stop vehicles, however, might well open a door to abuse by both opportunistic and organised criminals. The RAC—of which I have the honour to be a member of the public policy committee—and the AA have expressed their great concern at the potential risks to lone drivers. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Confederation of Passenger Transport fear that the proposals would leave vans, trucks and buses more vulnerable to hijack and robbery. I hope that your Lordships' Select Committee will look most carefully at the proposals in that respect which are contained in the Bill. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Jenkin that we are not asking for the police

557
actually to carry out the tests; we are merely talking about the people who stop the vehicle—there needs to be, perhaps, only one policeman.
I said earlier that if it is decided that existing regulations are inadequate and that new legislation is needed, there are some key points which I would want to see included. I believe that it is essential that we set down in statute rules which ensure that the operation of emissions testing is fair and that the same standards apply for the whole country. Only three years ago Parliament enacted a major revision of the road traffic Acts, one of the purposes of which was to re-establish consistency in road traffic offences and penalties. It would be a mistake now to start unstitching that excellent work.
I turn now to the question of penalty charges. The Bill would allow initial penalty charges up to a maximum of £1,000 which is equivalent to a level 3 fine under the construction and use regulations. If the offender failed to rectify the problem, the council would have discretion to prosecute and impose fines of up to £5,000. I do not want to see draconian fines being handed out to motorists who are unaware that their cars are at fault and who would be alarmed to learn that they were unnecessarily contributing to air pollution. We should heed the example of the United States, where technological awareness and a recent national Clean Air Act have meant that all new cars now have to be fitted with an on-board diagnostic—the so-called "Green Box"—which informs the driver through a light on the dashboard when his car is exceeding accepted emissions limits. Over 80 per cent. of American motorists respond to the signal and take action to rectify the fault within the next 50 miles. The small minority who do nothing to improve the performance of their vehicle are then fined by the authorities. It seems to me that it would be sensible, in due course, to introduce on-board diagnostics to cars in the United Kingdom. There is no reason to believe that British motorists would not respond in the same responsible way as American drivers when advised that their cars are at fault. Initial fines should, therefore, be kept low to act as a prompt rather than a punishment. Stronger steps could then be taken through sharply rising fines if corrective action is not taken within a stipulated time limit. That approach would be consistent with other similar technical offences under the construction and use regulations.
It is important that any new legislation proposed by the Government should set out a uniform structure for penalty fines. That is something that the Bill fails to do. I have already described how the Bill would allow for 32 separate penalty charge levels. Such inconsistency in setting penalty charges is unacceptable. Another concern is that some councils might seek to use the new emissions enforcement powers to raise revenue for other areas of council spending. That must not be allowed to happen.
If we are serious about tackling emissions, there is a good case for dedicating revenues raised through enforcement to the financing of continued testing, which, as my noble friend suggested, could include paying for the time of the police officers who would
558
have to be present when vehicles are stopped. Treasury rules should be changed to allow that reimbursement to be additional to the core Home Office funding. Therefore, the Bill should include a clause which ring-fences that new revenue for emissions control. The aim of emission enforcement should be to improve the environment, not just to raise money.
As my noble friend said, I recognise that funding from that source may not be adequate if the levels of the initial penalty are kept low, as I believe they should be. However, I propose another solution to my noble friend, and to the Government. At present, revenue from parking has to be used by the local authority for a limited range of highway-related purposes. Could the Government not widen the scope of the permitted uses for parking revenue to include paying for emissions control measures? That would make new funds available and, indeed, give local authorities increased discretion. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include such provisions in the Environment Bill which is now before another place.
Standards must also be set for the training and qualifications of the people who will be carrying out the emissions testing. Officials of the Department of Transport Vehicles Inspectorate are trained to a high level and operate to rigorous guidelines when testing vehicles. Nowhere in the Bill is it made clear from what higher authority those authorised officers will receive certification.
Similarly, I am not satisfied that the operational guidelines for testing will be clear, or that the appeals procedure is either clear or fair. There are problems with the way that the Bill has been drafted which could potentially open up conflict between council officials enforcing the tests and drivers at the receiving end of penalty notices. It is also, in theory, possible for a driver to be in double jeopardy: once from a local authority enforcement officer, imposing one level of penalties, and once from the police imposing another under the construction and use regulations. Surely that cannot be right.
I turn finally to Clause 5, which deals with stationary vehicles. The intention of the Bill is clearly to prohibit the running of engines while a vehicle is stationary. But an engine can be left running when,
"it is required to be worked for purposes other than driving the vehicle".
That loosely-drafted phrase would seem to exempt a stationary bus or coach, which has its engine running to keep the engine working, or so the driver could argue. Yet those buses which have their engines ticking over while the driver eats his lunch are a major part of the problem described by my noble friend. I hope that the Select Committee will also look carefully at that point.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that sensible proposals for effective emissions testing, on a national basis, are important if we are to deal with air pollution in our towns and cities. Unfortunately, the Bill now before us does not achieve that objective. The role of the police in stopping vehicles must remain. That is an absolutely fundamental point of principle for which there is a great deal of support. If that means that alternative funding for police officers must be found, so

559
be it. I have briefly suggested—although, I hope, positively—how that could be done. I also hope that the Government will, before long, bring forward proposals which will resolve some of those problems. I trust that members of the Select Committee will look carefully at the points that I have made when the Bill is placed before them.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the congratulations expressed by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—on their new appointments. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, it is perhaps appropriate or apposite that he should be undertaking the promotion of the Bill this evening.
In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the previous debates we have had on the subject, most notably as regards Part II of the Bill. Indeed, it is that part of the Bill upon which I should like to concentrate tonight. We discussed the matter at fair length on 9th February on the sixth Committee day of the Environment Bill. I do not propose to reiterate the points I made on that occasion because they appear at col. 326 of Hansard of that day.
My noble friend said:
"I hope that the police will do more to combat real crime rather than stopping vehicles puffing out smoke".—[Official Report, 9/2/95; col. 329.]
I thought that was rather unkind of him. However, I did not take the matter up at the time. But he will know that the random stopping of motor cars, whether it be for puffing out smoke or for other reasons, gives police the opportunity to detect other serious crimes. Therefore I do not think this is particularly a question of wasting police time.
My noble friend also said in his opening remarks that during the passage of the Environment Bill—notably on 9th February and 9th March—his amendments received widespread support. What my noble friend did not say was that while there was some support given at that time, when my noble friend put the amendment to the House by way of a vote on 9th March your Lordships' House rejected the amendment by 89 to 56. That was a not inconsiderable majority. It is important that we recall that. Perhaps the primary reason for the rejection was the unhappiness that your Lordships felt with regard to the stopping powers. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has discussed this matter on more than one occasion. I agree with his remarks and I do not wish to repeat comments other than perhaps to say that I remain fundamentally opposed to the introduction of a further army of officials who, I suppose, would wear some sort of uniform and have new and perhaps not widely recognised powers. There are too many of these people about already. They are confusing not only to people in London but to people in other cities too. Even if a new force were to be created for the stopping of motor vehicles for the purpose of emission testing, there would be dangers to the stoppers. We read too often, sadly, of cases where the police in pursuance of their proper duties seek to stop a motor car on suspicion of
560
something or other and are shot at or attacked. Of course no one likes that. However, one has to recognise that the police have been given a long and thorough training to deal with such activity. I cannot see a private army of stoppers, employed by the combined local authorities or indeed by any other local authorities, having the wisdom or perhaps even the physical power. That is an additional reason for not empowering another army of people.
I rest my case largely on the existing law being better enforced. Indeed the Freight Transport Association, together with the Road Haulage Association and the other motoring organisations have petitioned against Part II of the Bill. The FTA says that it,
"recognises the current pressures on police resources but believes there are a number of ways by which police presence at such checks could be funded".
I shall not take up the time of your Lordships tonight on that matter. No doubt the FTA in its evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee will outline its ideas in that regard.
I have spent most of my life involved with the motor industry, and to some extent the haulage industry. I recognise that some commercial vehicles, coaches, taxis and indeed motor cars are gross polluters. I recognise that we have passed the stage where something must be done about that. For one thing I would prefer to see the emission check in the MOT test carried out on a vehicle's second anniversary because it is not only some older vehicles but also some ill-maintained vehicles which can give problems. An ill-maintained 18 month-old vehicle with 30,000 miles on the clock—that is not an impossibility—can also be a gross polluter. If what I suggest were adopted it would tighten up the scheme and it would not cost the operator any more than the present arrangements.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara that if local authorities are to be given the authority to operate a testing station, there has to be a national level of standards and a national level of penalties. One cannot envisage one local authority—my noble friend spoke of 32 in London alone—or 60 or 70 local authorities imposing their own standards and their own penalties. I support my noble friend on that point. I was also disappointed to learn from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding of the letter of 11th April from my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I would have hoped that his remarks to us during the passage of the Environment Bill that the Department of Transport was taking certain steps as a matter of urgency would have shown, as it were, a green light for further and more comprehensive national legislation to deal with this problem. That matter is a disappointment. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply to the debate can give us more encouragement or say something about a timescale.
I would like to see greater efforts made to deal with this problem. I am not averse to the worst vehicles which are gross polluters and which cannot be reasonably repaired and brought back to a reasonable standard being taken off the road. That may be hard on a certain group of people but we cannot go on in the way we have been doing in the past few years. The life of a motor car now is something like 11 to 14 years and

561
we cannot afford that kind of timescale. I would like to see a national scale of penalties and national testing standards within the framework of the national law. I hope that, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said in his closing remarks, your Lordships' Select Committee will have regard to those points when it deals with the matter.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I make it clear that I welcome this Bill and support the whole of it. In doing so I am glad of the opportunity to welcome the formation of the Association of London Government. Throughout the past 10 years on almost every occasion when, as a London councillor, I have discussed London matters with representatives of business and other organisations, I have been told how much better it would be if there were one voice speaking for London local authorities. I am delighted that we now have that. I join others in congratulating two noble Lords on their appointments as joint presidents of the association.
With regard to vehicle emissions, it is self-evident that action is required, together with steps to enforce that action. The Government have acknowledged the need to act but so far have been unable to commit themselves on how they will achieve those ends. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, made it clear during the course of the Environment Bill that he was sympathetic and was extremely open when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I went to see him to talk about this subject. I was grateful for that. We said then that it would be far better if the emissions provisions extended beyond London. However, if there is no possibility of providing for them beyond London let us at least achieve what we can for our capital city. Too often, as we know, the best is the enemy of the good. The capital is very important; let us lead the way.
It also occurred to me that it would have been better if the recent photographs of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport crouching next to exhaust pipes, exhorting the public to ensure that their emissions are not noxious, were backed up by enforcement powers.
I agree with noble Lords who have indicated the importance of demystifying the subject. At the risk of confirming the reputation of women drivers, I admit that it was only when I asked my garage to check emissions from my car, which has a catalytic converter, that I was told that a green light would light up on my dashboard if there were a problem. I did not know that, but perhaps I am not good enough at reading the handbook. A couple of days ago, having had my car tested, I realised after a little scratching of my head that the computer printout I had was not a calculation of parts and VAT but was a slightly idiosyncratic reading of the gases that were emitted. I have not yet been able to establish whether that was good or bad. I mention that to flesh out my point that it is extremely important that the ordinary driver ought to know what he or she is doing to the atmosphere and be able to translate the information into everyday language.
562
I recognise the anxieties that have been expressed about vulnerability in the event of stopping and checking by others than the police. In relation to the dangers of imposters, it occurred to me to wonder whether an offence would be committed if an authorised officer were impersonated. I am fairly certain that it is an offence to impersonate a police officer. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows whether it would be an offence to impersonate an authorised officer under the Bill.
As a woman who frequently drives alone, I am well aware of the dangers of carjacking, breaking into cars, and so on. I am quite frightened about that. If I were signalled to stop at a point which looked dodgy I think that I would take the risk of driving on and not stopping. There must be ways of ensuring that the operation looks authoritative and proper.
I also believe that we should not have to rely on the police force to enforce everything. The police have many important matters to occupy their time. There are many offences with which only they can deal and there is much preventive action which only they can take. In the absence of funding for the police to deal with stopping vehicles to allow emissions to be checked, it is perfectly proper to deal with the matter in the same way as parking enforcement.
I recall that during the course of the Environment Bill some concerns were expressed about rights of appeal. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the provisions for appeal in respect of parking enforcement in London are working quite well under the new regime. I am sure that there will be public comments that local authorities will try to make money out of the operation in the same way as allegations were made that they tried to take money out of parking enforcement. However, I am certain that their ambition will be to work themselves out of a job in this particular area. Incidentally, I support the comment about some of the proceeds being recycled towards the police if that will help the operation.
With regard to funding, it seems that the Treasury and the Home Office want to have their cake and eat it, or perhaps not to use their cake and not to allow others to eat it either. If there were other ways of achieving the objective I would support them, but there are not; nor have other mechanisms been worked out. Therefore, I warmly support the provisions of the Bill relating to vehicle emissions.
I should like to say a word on two other topics covered by the Bill. I support the proposals relating to bus lanes. That issue is linked to air quality because, provided that the buses themselves are properly maintained, the more buses are used then the fewer cars there will be on our roads. The use of remote cameras should prove an effective deterrent. That seems to have been the experience with regard to speed cameras and cameras at traffic lights. I believe that that experience will be replicated.
Turning to car boot sales, one always learns something during the course of any proceedings in this House. I now discover that the collective noun for buyers and sellers is a "concourse". The problems which have been identified are the very real problems of traffic

563
and disturbance, although there are many more problems with regard to car boot sales which cannot be addressed in the Bill. I am thinking in particular of the theft (and I use the term deliberately) of copyright in the pirating of records, videos and magazines. The loss to British industry runs at many millions of pounds.
Therefore, I welcome the requirement for names and addresses to be displayed at such sales. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House whether the names and addresses will have to be displayed at individual pitches, literally on the car boots, rather than simply listed at the sale. If he is not able to give an answer tonight I shall understand. This issue is particularly important. There is a risk of unsafe goods being sold at such sales where the seller is, by definition, mobile and may not easily be found when the sale is over.
I have two final questions for the noble Lord. Will it be possible for a local authority to refuse a licence if it is not possible for adequate arrangements to be made within the terms of Clause 20(4) (b)? Secondly, what are the views of the magistrates, to whom an appeal can be made? In giving magistrates powers to deal with appeals, are they able to give an order for compensation if a licence has been refused? If that were the case, I would feel ambivalent on that point.
Having raised those few questions, I wish the Bill well. I know that Bills of this type do not necessarily move as swiftly as others through Parliament, but I hope that this Bill will move as swiftly and successfully as is practicable.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first, I acknowledge with appreciation the kind words about the joint presidency of the new body for London local government. It was referred to by my fellow joint president, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whom I have known for many years. At one time he could have been my Member of Parliament for Enfield, east, but he was poached by another place where he served with distinction. We have many common interests, not least our desire to serve the people of London. He and I were grateful to be given the opportunity jointly to provide a voice for London local government. We both look forward to occasions such as today to demonstrate that when it comes to the interests of local government, not only both sides of the House but all sides of the House are involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also demonstrated that.
There is no political animus in this subject, as I shall show and as has been pointed out. There is a long history of anxiety on the subject and the Select Committee which will examine the legislation in due course will be well served in reading the well informed debate. The contributions have been balanced and I do not believe that a single nonsensical point has been made throughout the hour or longer, all points have been serious. Because this is a private measure, I do not speak on behalf of my party but broadly on behalf of my interests in local government. I ask the House to acknowledge that.
564
The Bill is the product of the research and thought of 32 London boroughs. One may make much play of those whom they represent and on whose behalf they speak, but the Minister and the Select Committee would do well to recognise that after the difficult period that has faced London local government, we now have proposals which have been endorsed by the two bodies. They speak on behalf of their constituent members; we now have one body which speaks on behalf of its constituent members. Thus the case so splendidly put by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is endorsed by those who modestly seek to represent the views of Londoners.
I should also make it clear that whatever the other interests to be served, the London local government bodies which I know are concerned with the health and hygiene of people who live and work in London as much as with any other interests. It is not a dirty phrase to say that one speaks on behalf of certain interests, nor has that been the case this evening. The interests on whose behalf I speak or with whom I claim credit to he associated are primarily concerned with the health and hygiene of people who live and work in London.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is right to remind both ourselves and the Select Committee that although Part II of the Bill is controversial, there are other good parts. I acknowledge that Members of the House who spoke forcefully against the provisions of Part II recognise that if other parts of the Bill do not have their approval, they do not take exception to them. London government and the mechanism whereby Westminster City Council has been the agent have a good record over the years in producing legislation which is peculiar to the capital city.
We remind ourselves that in the Bill there are powers to enforce bus lanes, the licensing of car boot sales, amendments to existing entertainment licensing as well as other powers. In recent years, the London local authorities legislation has covered such matters as night cafe licensing, street trading, abandoned shopping trolleys, crime prevention, reconnection of gas, water and electricity services, special treatment premises, distribution containers, burglar alarms, and scaffolding licences. Each of those is important to the lives of people who live and work in London. I have no doubt that if Londoners were invited to say which aspect of living and working, particularly in the centre of London, affected them adversely daily, they would say that it was congestion, the problem of transport and ancillary matters.
We have probably reached a situation where the arguments that have been deployed in support of Part II are valid and have good authority. The Select Committee on Transport in the House of Commons recently made a report, Transport-related air pollution in London. Among other things it stated:
"We also recommend that the Government should give favourable consideration to a possible proposal from the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association for private legislation to give local authorities in the capital the power to carry out emissions checks on vehicles and to serve the driver, where necessary, with an enforcement notice requiring remedial action to be taken. Such a system could be financed through a fixed penalty charge".

565
That was the view of the Commons Select Committee on Transport. In my view, that is a reasonable argument to pray in aid.
The Department of the Environment and the Home Office were consulted during the drafting of the Bill. The Department of the Environment made its support public in its air quality strategy, Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, which was launched at the beginning of this year. The report said:
"the Government welcomes the LBA initiative in bringing forward proposals in the London Local Authorities Bill to extend kerbside emissions testing powers to London local authorities. The proposals may present an opportunity to increase the level of roadside emissions testing in London, supplementing testing already carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate, and may provide a blueprint for future initiatives elsewhere in the country."
On top of that, we had valuable debates on the Environment Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, served the Committee well by giving us an update on government thinking. I do not believe that there is any argument but that we would all prefer national legislation, uniform application, and so on. I do not disagree; but we do not have a perfect world. Frankly we should not wait until either global resources or manpower mean that the will is universally felt before we take an initiative. The way our legislation is treated, London local government is able by itself to produce a plan or scheme which we believe will meet the problems.
However, those who spoke against the provisions in Part II quite rightly drew our attention to the problems that will be created. If we solve one problem, then we create others. I do not argue that there is only one solution, I believe that the Select Committee will be presented with a number of alternatives. To the best of my knowledge the London local government authorities will be perfectly willing to consider and listen to such alternatives, provided the desire to deal with the pollution is dealt with.
My experience before coming to Parliament was with the Co-operative Movement and often the idea of an amalgamation or merger between a group of co-operative societies was generally accepted. That is, until someone said: "We'll start by amalgamating society number one with society number two". "Oh no", one would say, "we are in favour of amalgamating all 12". We would say: "Yes, but you've got to start somewhere". "Well, don't start with us. We will merge one into 12, but we are not prepared to be picked off", would be the reply.
The problem for the Co-operative Movement and many similar democratic organisations is that where democracy is a vital force, it enables people to say no, even if that is ultimately to the detriment of their interests. I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who, without a direct responsibility in this matter, is here tonight to listen to the arguments and perhaps take them forward in some other way.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, put forward the powerful argument that although provisions were already in place, they were not being enforced
566
because of a lack of resources. He asked how we were to find the additional resources required. The promoters of the Bill will be able to respond to that. In fact, they will be obliged to come forward with arguments.
The Bill may be queried substantially not with regard to testing but as regards stopping. If the great solution is that that should only be done by police, then the resource implications must be considered. We must examine how the problem of providing the resources can be tackled. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, there is an ideal solution; but there are also half-way houses: ring-fencing of the income and enforcement provision only to the extent that the money raised can be used for that purpose.
I cannot believe that the Select Committee and those who will plead before it are not able to come up with some solutions. In the absence of positive proposals from the Government about solving the problem of devoting to this area sufficient resources in terms of police or traffic wardens, there is a strong case for retaining the local authority stopping power. I very much hope that the valuable provisions of the Bill will not be rejected or even that Part II is rejected simply because we have not examined how to overcome the problems.
I believe that the petitioners against the Bill are perfectly justified in bringing forward their arguments. They argue from a particular point of view which is substantially that of the motorist and the industry. I speak here with sympathy for their problems but primarily for the interests of Londoners, those who live and work in London. I cannot believe that, despite the problems which have been brought to our attention, problems of resources and priorities, especially with regard to the police, we shall not find a solution that is acceptable to all.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and every other speaker in the debate tonight. They have alerted the Government and the Select Committee to a genuine problem. I believe that they may come back at a later stage with a solution.
8.33 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be helpful if I give the House the Government's views on the Bill at this stage. We broadly welcome the proposals in the Bill for the improvement and development of local government services in London. We are sympathetic to the aims of the particular proposals of the Bill to give London authorities the power to enforce vehicle emission standards. We are still actively considering whether proposals could be brought forward on a national basis in the Environment Bill. However, I am unable to give any commitment in that respect at this stage.
However, there are certain aspects of the Bill about which we have reservations. In particular, we wish to highlight our concerns about the proposal to extend to authorised council officials the power to stop vehicles in order to enable the emissions tests to be carried out. This proposal raises a number of difficult issues, such as what powers the council should have to deal with

567
vehicles which refuse to stop and what the council's response should be to possible unrelated offences, such as drink-driving.
There are other aspects of the proposals which raise complex issues, including the availability of police resources to assist in local authorities' enforcement efforts, which again the Government are still actively pursuing. There are also a number of points of detail to be discussed with the agents for the promoters.
We have considered the proposal to deal with motorists who leave their engines running unnecessarily. We believe that the provisions of the clause will present possible enforcement problems. A similar offence already exists in relation to noise from stationary vehicles. I understand that experience has shown that in practice that offence is very difficult to prosecute and indeed very difficult to prove. The Government do not wish to see the same difficulties arising in respect of emissions from vehicles. We do not support that proposal.
The Government welcome in principle the proposal in the Bill to allow local authorities to take an active role in the enforcement of bus lanes, using camera technology. We believe, however, that it will first be necessary to determine whether that camera technology will work and whether it is acceptable to the public. We are willing to discuss with the promoters how best to take forward the proposals in this part of the Bill.
With the shortest speech this evening, I end by saying that the Committee will be in a far better position to consider all those points and hear expert evidence on them. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and proceed to its Select Committee stage in the usual way.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in winding up this brief debate, let me say how grateful I am to all those who have taken part. The good news is that everybody apparently agrees that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. The less good news is that there are clearly a number of obstacles, which those on whose behalf I moved the Second Reading will have to address and overcome. I am in the happy position that a good deal of what might have fallen into my concluding speech has already been said with great eloquence by my fellow joint president of the ALG, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It would clearly be a work of supererogation if I were to repeat many of the points which he made.
However, I was asked a number of specific questions. To many of them I have to say that the answer does not apparently lie in the Bill or in my briefing. I shall have to ask the ALG whether it can perhaps provide me with some of the answers.
I believe that we all share the anxiety to which the stopping power gives rise. We should all very much like to see an alternative which made it unnecessary for local authority officials to have that power. I am sure that some of the difficulties could be overcome. The suggestion that there would be 32 different systems with 32 different penalties and 32 different standards is—if I
568
may say so with the utmost respect to my noble friend Lord Brabazon—a little fanciful. The Bill would provide for a standard system of penalties. The existing standards under the construction and use regulations are the standards by which vehicles will he tested. They apply not only throughout London but are the same standards that apply nationally. I do not regard it as impossible that if we have to go down the route of having local authority officials doing the stopping, they, like traffic wardens, could be supplied with an easily recognisable and distinctive uniform. I take the point that it should be an offence for anybody to impersonate them, just as it is an offence to impersonate a policeman or, I believe, a traffic warden. I feel that some of the difficulties can be addressed.
The real point has been brought out extremely well in almost every speech; namely, how much better it would be if the police could have the stopping power and the necessary resources could be found and ring-fenced from the proceeds of the charges and fines that will be made. That seems to me to be the most appropriate source. I hope that I was not being unduly optimistic about the words that my noble friend Lord Goschen used in his brief but extremely helpful address when he said that the Government were still actively considering national legislation and were concerned about the power and the availability of police resources.
If we can just go that one step further and recognise, for instance, as in the waste tip charges that were brought into existence by the Budget and the Finance Bill, that you can have revenue in an environmental sense to be used for other environmental purposes, so we could use the fines here to pay specifically for extra police resources to be deployed for these duties. My noble friend was absolutely right. These are points to be discussed with the promoters.
I fear I cannot he quite so optimistic over what he said about the difficulties of enforcing legislation to switch off engines. He returned to the same argument that we had from my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the Environment Bill on the question of noise. With great respect, these are two totally different things. The problem with noise enforcement is that you have to establish a qualitative test: is the noise such as to be causing a nuisance? One can understand that environmental health officers and local authorities could have great difficulty in establishing that with sufficient certainty so as to bring a case in order to penalise somebody who is not switching off his engine.
In this case it is a simple question of fact: is the engine running or is it not? Is it running unnecessarily or is it not? My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara asked whether some tightening up is needed in the drafting. That may well be, but it is not like a noise issue. It is not a qualitative test. It is a straightforward test of whether or not the engine is running. These queues of lorries waiting to take refuse away and the queues of buses waiting for their passengers to come back—these are profound nuisances. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, during the debates on the Environment Bill, talked about the bus station in his constituency, so I hope we can scotch this argument that because the noise

569
regulations have been difficult to enforce therefore the proposals in this Bill about switching off an engine cannot he supported.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of very specific questions. She particularly asked about names and addresses being given in regard to boot sales. Here I would refer to the Bill, which provides in Clause 22(1) that,
"Any person who holds an occasional sale shall display his full name and business address and the full name and business address of the person appointed to receive and answer complaints about the occasional sale in a prominent position at the place where the sale is held".
It is specifically the organiser whose name and address must be there. If somebody actually has his car boot open, or whatever they do at car boot sales, and is actually selling goods, it is up to the purchaser to make sure that he knows who he is dealing with. The Bill provides for the organiser to do that.
The noble Baroness also asked whether a local authority can refuse a licence. As I read the Bill, referring to the granting of a licence we have the clause dealing with cases where the borough council has not refused to grant a licence and therefore shall be deemed to have granted a licence. From that I assume that a local authority can refuse to grant a licence if the conditions have not been met or if on a previous occasion the conditions have not been complied with.
Lastly, I come to the points made by my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Brahazon of Tara. I am grateful to them for recognising that the proper place to hammer out these arguments is in a Select Committee. I am quite sure that is right and I am also
570
sure that the great majority of points they have made can he met with the support of the Government in recognising that there should be charges which are not fines but which are civil debts accruing to the local authority concerned and which can then be deployed in meeting costs, including police costs, incurred in enforcement. That must be the right way forward. If my noble friends on the Front Bench are having some difficulties with some of their colleagues because this represents what might be thought of as a further move in the direction of what is sometimes called the hypothecation of revenues or the question of the altering of priorities in respect of police manpower, in the end we really have to decide: do we want to clean up London's air? Westminster says that there could he a 25 per cent. improvement as a result of the powers contained in the Bill. Is that something we want? I think that if one were to put that question to Londoners now—those who walk the streets and who go about their business in the centre of London and in busy shopping areas day after day—the answer would be an overwhelming "Yes, let's get on with it".
Therefore, let us give the Bill a Second Reading and remit it to a Committee. Let the Committee then address the many concerns that have been raised perfectly properly this evening, in the hope that we can eventually send the Bill to another place rather more swiftly than the previous London Local Authorities Bill which was introduced, I think, three years ago and has only just gone to another place.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  Child Support Benefit: Expenditure
  Child Support Benefit: Expenditure
  School Effectiveness Funding
  School Effectiveness Funding
  School Books and Equipment: Data Records
  School Books and Equipment: Data Records
  UK Waste Arisings
  UK Waste Arisings
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  "Acquis Communautaire"
  "Acquis Communautaire"
  European Union: Representation Abroad
  European Union: Representation Abroad
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  London Taxi Fares: Increase
  London Taxi Fares: Increase
  British Coal: Contamination Liabilities
  British Coal: Contamination Liabilities
  Vauxhall Cross
  Vauxhall Cross
  Gibraltar: Self-Determination
  Gibraltar: Self-Determination
  Natural Resources Institute
  Natural Resources Institute
  China: Population Policy and Human Rights
  China: Population Policy and Human Rights
  IPPF and UNFPA: UK Grants
  IPPF and UNFPA: UK Grants