Sitting of 6 December 1995

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

Common Agricultural Policy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
9.34 am
Mr. Tony Marlow: I regret to say that I have an interest to declare. I am a shareholder in a company which, among other things, owns what I think in Europe would be called a large farm but in Britain is a small farm. I receive subsidies through the common agricultural policy.
I understand that a resolution was passed in the House recently—I voted against it—whereby, if one has such an interest, one is not allowed act as an advocate for that interest. I will do my best and be very careful, but I am in fear and trepidation of the parliamentary beak, he who has been appointed to supervise those of us who have been elected.
Northampton, North is an urban constituency, and my constituents might well wonder why I am on my feet talking about the CAP. Some hon. Members may remember that I and some of my hon. Friends were rusticated from the Conservative party for a period earlier this year. That was a desperate and deeply worrying situation, if for only one reason: we were deprived of the tender loving care and advice of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
We therefore had to think for ourselves, which was a very dangerous thing. We looked at the various areas of policy, and we tended, one by one, to look at particular areas of policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) concentrated on fisheries, and I looked at agriculture, which is one of the reasons why I have some limited knowledge of the subject.
I would submit to my constituents and to the House that the CAP is very important to them, as I will go on to prove, as it is to the rest of the country. Why is that? First, there is the cost. This country spends each year on European policies some £10 billion. Over half the money that is spent on programmes—up to 80 per cent.—is spent on the CAP. We will spend this year and next year a likely net £3.5 billion—that is money into thin air, money for nothing. One of the main reasons for this expenditure is the CAP. The CAP is the wrong policy, and it affects everybody in the country through their pockets.
The CAP also affects people through their pockets because of the very high level of consumer prices. There is an artificial price level in Europe, above the world market price, which means that everybody has to pay more for their food than they would otherwise have to.
284
Since the MacSharry reforms, and since world market prices have gone up, that is not as marked as it has been, but it could become marked again in the future.
Thirdly, we lost our Icelandic waters, and were not allowed to regain fish in our own waters because of the common fisheries policy. We had a bad deal on fish. We had a bad deal on the budget, the net payment that we have to make. As with fisheries, we have also, with regard to rest of Europe and despite some brilliant work by Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—not least by my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for the Environment—a bad deal for agriculture, even within the bad CAP in Europe.
The CAP also, as everybody in Europe is increasingly coming to recognise, gets in the way of the sort of Europe that we in Britain want. We want an enlarged Europe—enlarged to the east for its own sake, for security, for the well-being and decency of the people of eastern Europe, and for the security of Europe. Also, an enlarged Europe will have to have a variable geometry, which is very much in the UK's interest—otherwise, we would have a federal European state, which we do not want. We want an enlarged Europe, but that is impossible with the existing common agricultural policy.
The consumer pays higher than necessary prices; the cost to the taxpayer is higher than necessary; and we are paying for an agricultural support system that discriminates against efficient UK agriculture and in favour of less efficient continental farmers. The CAP is a system of agricultural support that is wrong for the United Kingdom, was wrong in the past for Europe, and is certainly wrong for the future Europe for which we should be aiming.
Why do we need a system of agricultural support? My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has often said that, given the right subsidies, he could grow tomatoes profitably at the north pole. There is a certain Powellite logic to that argument, but it is not right to apply it to agricultural support.
We need a system of agricultural support for various reasons. First, the risks in agriculture are much greater than in any other business. There are not only risks involved over what might happen to the market and prices, but climatic risks. Without the limited level of certainty that is provided by a system of agricultural support, no farming community would have sufficient confidence to invest in and maintain—as British farmers do—one of the world's most efficient and cost-effective agricultural industries.
What should a good system seek to achieve? First, there has to be an element of self-sufficiency for strategic reasons—one never knows what will happen in the wide world, so we need the ability to feed ourselves. Secondly, we want an attractive countryside—we have not achieved one by developing a rural theme park throughout the UK. An attractive countryside has been developed through the activities of our farmers over hundreds of years. We shall continue to have an attractive countryside if it is farmed well and properly.
Thirdly, we need a system of agricultural support that optimises the balance of output, profitability, sustainability and value to the taxpayer. The system must also supply the cheapest basic food commodities, which has the added benefit of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of many of the programmes that he and she has to provide.

285
Those who are less well off typically spend 25 per cent. of their budget on food; those who are better off spend perhaps 10 per cent. of their budget on food. The social security budget is massive, but in real terms it would become less of a "burden" on the taxpayer if we had a policy of cheap rather than expensive food. As we consider the various systems of agricultural support, any calculation of the cost to the Exchequer has to take account of the fact that cheap food would reduce that cost.
What is wrong with the existing system of support, the CAP, for the United Kingdom? The first problem involves the overall cost: a £10 billion gross contribution, which is a lot of money, and a £3.4 billion per year net contribution. The second problem relates to the specific cost of some of the programmes, such as the tobacco—the poison weed—regime. That regime costs Europe—and we contribute—£1 billion a year; half the tobacco is virtually unusable, cannot be smoked in Europe and has to be dumped on the world market. Why should we subscribe to that regime?
The olive oil regime costs, on average, over five years, £1.5 billion a year. In addition, the regime means that the price that housewives and shoppers in this country have to pay for olive oil is more than they would otherwise have to pay in the world market. There is a wine regime—is there a hops regime? Why should Britain contribute to the annual £1 billion cost of shoring up the vineyards of Europe?
The third problem involves bureaucracy. I do not know if hon. Members follow "The Archers", but poor old Brian Aldridge seems to be in a bit of a hole at the moment because he filled in his forms incorrectly and is losing tens of thousands of pounds—
Mr. Elliot Morley: Nine thousand five hundred pounds.
Mr. Marlow: I am sorry—£9,500. I said "tens of thousands of pounds", when I should perhaps have said "nearly" tens of thousands or "fractions of tens of thousands of pounds. Someone follows these matters more closely than I do.
I am not particularly sorry for Brian Aldridge and people like him, but farmers have to become more skilled in filling in forms than in agriculture—looking after their crops and animals—which is bizarre. Many farmers who are not trained in such skills find it difficult to cope. They are concerned that they put the wretched forms in the post in April or May, no one tells them whether they have completed them properly and will receive their money until December, when they receive no cheques either because they have been lost in the post or because the forms were not completed correctly. That system causes many people grave anxiety, and they find it difficult to cope; it is also bureaucratic nonsense.
Bureaucracy does not only produce costs for the farmer, who might have to pay for expensive advice: we have to pay for bureaucrats to look at the forms and try to make sense of them. Bureaucracy costs money and wastes time and space, and the system should be abolished.
Bureaucracy also encourages fraud. In Greece and Italy, the CAP has been ripped off by the Mafia and various other unscrupulous groups. It is estimated that there is
286
currently £4 billion a year of fraud in Europe, and I am sure that much of the fraud occurs in the CAP. Greeks and Italians will not prevent fraud occurring in relation to a European policy in which they spend European money in their own countries—and neither will anyone from Brussels. The only way to prevent that fraud is to change the CAP.
The fraud partly explains why this country—and Europe as a whole—is becoming increasingly Euro-sceptic. We believe—I think with justification—that terrible things happen in other countries because their officials allow it, but our officials do not let us get away with anything. That is a deeply unhealthy by-product of the CAP and builds up a culture of cheating, which, mercifully, has not been part of our country's culture until now.
The United Kingdom also faces problems relating to the specific crop areas. We probably have—to borrow from the Carlsberg advertisement—the most efficient arable farmers in the world, yet we in Britain have to take more of our arable land out of production than any other country in Europe. We probably have the most efficient dairy producers in the world hut, owing to the quota system, we are not allowed to produce enough milk products even to satisfy our own market.
The quota system is nonsense—it is a restrictive structure that is doubtless necessary under the existing regime, but if we changed that policy, perhaps we could abolish the quota system. The quota system is politically embarrassing, because people are paid to set aside land and grow weeds on it. Could we not devise a better system? Most people are irritated by the present system, and any wise Minister should take account of that.
What should we do? I shall grossly over-simplify what I know to be a complicated subject, and set out a few principles. I believe in free trade, and I should like to see free trade among agricultural products in Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world. There should be a common price level throughout Europe, as at present, but at world market prices. That would not only be suitable for the old and developing Europe, but, owing to the cheap cost of agricultural commodities in the east, it is essential if we are to expand Europe.
We must repatriate our system of agricultural support, so that each country has its own support regime and each country pays for its agricultural support. Agricultural commodities in Europe should trade at world market prices, without levies, without duties and without restitution. I shall discuss that in more detail, commodity by commodity.
Let us start with pigmeat and poultry. I do not want to upset the animal welfare lobby, but, these days, pigmeat and poultry have become effectively a manufactured commodity. It is possible to produce plastic from oil—one feeds in oil at one end and produces plastic at the other end. To a certain extent, one feeds in grain and proteins at one end and produces a poultry product; further down stream, one may produce a detailed product. One may produce a poultry commodity or a pig commodity at the other end. There is no system of agricultural support for pigs and poultry, and there needs to be no succinct system for support in the future.
Arable is a very important sector. We should go back—or go forward—to a new system of deficiency payments. I shall take wheat as an example, although, obviously,

287
other cereals would tie in. One would have a reference price, and if the price in the market fell beneath the reference price, there would be a make-up between the market price and the reference price. The reference price would be calculated to be what arable farmers would need to receive, year on year, to have sufficient confidence to become effective and efficient, and to carry out their business.
There would have to be a cap on the tonnage for which that support could be paid, so the total support would be the cap tonnage multiplied by the difference between the reference price and the market price, and the deficiency payment, in the event, per tonne would be the total support paid divided by the actual tonnage.
Capping would have three effects. First, it would limit Treasury expenditure. Treasury expenditure would be determined solely by the difference between the reference price and the world market price, and the cap would prevent the Treasury from having to spend any more money if there were a bonanza harvest.
Secondly, capping would enable such a system to comply with the GATT regime. As the House knows well, the GATT regime allows a system of acreage payments, and such a system of deficiency payments would accord with GATT, because it would not encourage increased production against GATT, or provide subsidies for exports, which would be contrary to GATT.
Thirdly, if there is a bumper harvest and superabundance, why should the Treasury pay? The farmers are doing quite nicely anyhow.
There should be a new system of deficiency payments for milk and dairy products. Before the farming year, a reference price would be agreed. Deficiency payments would be payable between the average achieved price and the reference price. There would be capping, such that, if production increased, payment per litre would reduce commensurately.
In the dairy sector—I know that this goes against all the market tenets—I believe that it is essential to safeguard the position of the small farmer. Socially and environmentally, it is essential that we maintain those prospects, to ensure that our rural areas remain vital and vibrant communities.
To achieve that, it may be necessary to give every dairy farmer a minimum gallonage, on which a full make-up could be paid. As marginal overall production increased and the marginal payment decreased, the lower price would increasingly fall on the larger farmer. If we get our figures right, I am sure that it would be right for the small farmer and for the large farmer.
For wonderful, tasty, lovely beef and lamb, we might also have a new system of deficiency payments. They may not be necessarily especially high, and they may potentially be at a reducing level, because there is a massive potential world market out there. At the moment, with quotas sitting on our sheep industry, we are discouraged from taking advantage of it.
That would be the system. As circumstances, needs, the world markets and fashions change, my hon. Friend the Minister would be able to play whatever tunes he felt were right for the country, for British agriculture and for the interests of GB Ltd. on the world market. He would be able to do it, and we would not have to go to Brussels to have it done; we would be able to do it here.
288
Can we do it? Can we get away with it? Is it possible? Who opposes it? I wonder what the position of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association would be. The National Farmers Union is a good union, but it is a union, and unions—if Labour Members will forgive me—tend to be conservative. Unions like to bind in their members, and they like what they have at the moment. Everyone is okay at the moment.
I know that the NFU is saying that things might not be quite the same in future, and that we must think awkward thoughts about the future, but it likes to think of its members and tell them:
"always keep a hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse."
If the union frightens its members about such changes, and if its members are frightened anyhow, I am afraid that they will continue to be conservative. They like what they have, and they are frightened of change. They should not be frightened of change.
Farmers love quotas. Quotas now have capital value and are traded. One litre of milk quota sells for 60p or 70p. It costs 10p to trade or lease 1 litre of milk quota for a year. It is big money. A while ago, some farmers' milk quota was worth as much as the land and the cattle put together. It is nonsense, but people like it, and they are frightened of losing it.
Mr. Morley: Those who have it.
Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman says, those who have it. For those who do not have it, it is a great block, preventing them from entering the market. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the philosophy of Conservative Members that we should have flexible markets and allow people to enter them, and that we should not structure things in the way that they are at the moment.
There is fear of the Treasury. There is a feeling that, if we repatriated our agricultural policy and the Treasury were responsible for it, the Treasury would be mean and would bear down, and there would be no proper system of agricultural support, so all the other farmers in Europe would do better than farmers in the United Kingdom.
No British Government would turn their back on their own farmers. They have not done so in the past—we had an effective system of agricultural support before we joined the Community. I do not believe that any British Government would allow a system of agricultural support to devastate our countryside, which is one of the jewels of the United Kingdom.
Besides, given the potential savings if we were not making the massive contribution to Europe that we make at the moment, given the fact that we would have cheap food, and therefore the bills to the Treasury for social security would be less than they would otherwise be, there would be money for the Treasury to be more generous with agriculture than it is at the moment—not that that would be necessary—and at the same time to make savings on its existing expenditure.
It is a great world out there. There is a growing population. Some parts of the world have rapidly increasing living standards, but a decreasing ability to grow their own food. We have a powerful agriculture here, which is encouraging.

289
Would our partners accept those changes? Some would not like it at all. Each Greek at the moment gets £285 a year from Europe. Each Portugese gets £391 a year from Europe. So be it; too bad. I do not see why they should. That must be stopped. The Irish are getting £447 a year. A new system of agricultural support might benefit Ireland, as it would us. Ireland has potentially a very prosperous agriculture. It could benefit from those changes.
France is a net contributor. Why should not France, in the long term—looking at the world market out there, France being an agricultural exporting country—go along with those changes? If Europe expands, there will be social payments to eastern Europe. Can we afford it? There will be agricultural payments to eastern Europe. Can we afford it? No; we cannot. So there have to be changes, and those changes will be of benefit to France.
Germany likes the common agricultural policy for one reason—that it must support its farmers, it feels. It has many small farmers. If those farmers were supported through German taxation, it would be politically unacceptable in Germany. As the support is routed through Brussels and comes out again, apparently the German public do not know what is being done in their name, so they are satisfied with it.
However, Germany now has the overriding priority to join up with eastern Europe, and the Germans cannot have both the CAP as it is now and a greater Europe, moving to the east. Something has to give. I suggest that the change in the common agricultural policy would do it. Germany makes a massive net contribution to Europe. Germany is getting increasingly restive about that net contribution to Europe. This is the way that German demands and desires can be satisfied.
I summarise the advantages of the changes that I suggest. First, we could do away with the iniquitous dock labour scheme type system of quotas, which would allow—with difficulty, but it is very difficult anyway—more newcomers to come into agriculture. That would allow much more efficient use of the land, because it would not be artificially structured as it is now. It would allow increasing opportunities for agricultural entrepreneurs, so that we could optimise agricultural output and production.
The changes I suggest would allow the Italians and the Greeks to pay for their fraud. That would be fair, and the British public would enjoy that. The British public resents keeping those states in the manner to which they feel they should be accustomed.
My changes would lower food prices. If, at any stage, there were low world food prices, the British consumer would be able to take advantage of them. The changes would be of great benefit to the Treasury, because lower food prices would lower the transfer payments that the Treasury has to make annually. My suggestions would lead to an opportunity for Britain to increase sales of agricultural products in a growing, wealthier world, and, as I have said before, they would increase the sovereignty of the House and the Government. We would once again have control over affairs that should not be controlled from across the channel.
Yesterday's events in Paris, with the declining probability of monetary union and a single currency, the political reaction to those events that is likely to follow,
290
and the realisation that the Maastricht treaty has been imposed by an elite against the wishes and interests of the people, mean that there is potentially a new destiny for Europe that is yet to be moulded. Let us try this time to mould it in the interests of the people of Britain and Europe, not in the interests of the institutions. I have one piece of advice for my hon. Friend the Minister of State—courage, mon enfant.
10.1 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: My middle name is Archer, but I predate the programme. When my ancestors arrived in Cornwall in 1066, presumably with an unpronounceable Norman name, they were simply known by their occupation.
I have news for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—"The Archers" is make-believe. Incidentally, he seems to have seriously misread the plot by referring to "poor" Brian Aldridge. He has misunderstood what is happening in the British countryside. There is nothing poor about Brian Aldridge, because he is a cereal farmer on a big scale. However, the livestock farmers, good and bad, in Ambridge may share the concerns of the hon. Member.
Throughout the British countryside, there is a recognition that the status quo is not a long-term option. Back in 1992, when the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Minister and he came to this House with his bit of paper—the "peace in our time" of the countryside—some of us expressed real concerns about the extent to which that reworking of the CAP could possibly be sustainable. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Northampton, North, because he too was worried at that time, although his was a lone voice in the wilderness on the Government Benches.
Liberal Democrats represent many rural areas, and we were worried that the over-concentration on area payments and on set-aside revealed a degree of mismatch and mis-targeting that was agriculturally, economically, environmentally and politically unsustainable. We have been proved right.
We also felt that there were insufficient mechanisms for adjustment if world prices changed at a different speed or in a different direction to the forecasts. We have recently heard the frank confessions of large farmers, such as Oliver Walston, about the extent to which they are reliant on huge cheques from the public purse. Those confessions show that the lack of any efficient mechanism was a serious deficiency.
Most seriously, Members of all parties, and Commissioner MacSharry, were worried that those reforms were represented by the then Minister as the last word for the foreseeable future on reform of the CAP. Clearly that is not true, and today we know it not to be true. Those reforms were the first step, and the momentum had to be maintained.
The Government frequently tell us that they are in favour of reform, but that everyone else still wants to sin. Apparently we are the only country in Europe recanting our sins. I do not believe that to be so, and the discussions that I have had recently in other member states, new and old, suggest that that is not the common view of those who have a real appreciation of what is happening to the CAP. That is particularly true of the new members.

291
In the rural policy White Paper, there is an admirably succinct summary of what is wrong with the CAP. I draw attention to the fact, which the Minister recently repeated to me in the House, that
"total transfer payments from EC consumers and taxpayers (including national budgetary expenditures) are estimated by OECD to have exceeded total EC farm income in 1993 by 50%".
In other words, half the total investment never reaches farm incomes, and farmers do not benefit. The leakage down the chain is comparable to, and exceeds, that of the water companies, about which hon. Members have been so critical. The investment that we hope will reach the countryside and the primary producers does so to the extent of only one half.
The other criticisms in the rural White Paper are valid and right. We now need to know how they will be communicated to our partners and be turned into real reform. On that issue, the Government's White Paper is sadly silent.
One would hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment would have some influence on the Foreign Office. The Minister of State has experience in the Foreign Office, so it will be interesting to hear his comments on the extent to which we can rely on allies and friends in Europe. I suspect that many in Europe wish to take the same route as ourselves, with adaptations to suit their circumstances. However, our record of making friends and allies is not good; nor is our diplomatic success in trying to ensure that specific British interests are well represented.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North referred to the milk quotas debacle, which stems from the negotiations by British Ministers in Brussels in 1986. They negotiated away 15 per cent. of our total national milk need, and we are now allowed to produce only 85 per cent. of our total needs. That is not a failure of the European Union, because one could say that it is a success for all the other member states in obtaining a quota higher than their national needs. Those negotiations were a direct failure of our Ministers to represent the industry effectively.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North would like to renationalise agricultural policy. He should know by now that our agricultural interest is comparatively small, and the influence it exerts over Whitehall is limited. We have huge problems in trying to ensure that the ministerial interpretation of European Union policies is to the advantage of British farmers.
Is opting out of the European Union realistic? We could not be a member of the European Union and be a semi-detached member of the CAP. There are two possible scenarios. The first, and I suspect the real motive behind the hon. Member's suggestions, is to cut our links with the European Union and float out into the Atlantic. Not only farmers but those who are concerned about the future of countryside would regard that with grave suspicion.
The second scenario would be for every other member state to repatriate its own agricultural policy. We know what would happen then.
Mr. Marlow: It is a little tiresome that, whenever anyone suggests any change, reform or differences within Europe—I am not just suggesting that Britain should
292
repatriate its agricultural policy but that every country in Europe should—the Liberal Democrats' unique response is to say that one wants to leave Europe and drag Britain off into the Atlantic. I have never suggested that, nor am I ever likely to do so.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful. That view is not shared by all the hon. Gentleman's honourable colleagues, as I have heard in recent weeks. However, I take him at his word.
If his purpose is to encourage other member states to repatriate their agricultural policies, the immediate effect would be that those member states which count their agriculture industry and vote rather more highly in their lists of national priorities than do the British Government, will inevitably seek every way possible to make the present uneven playing field even less even.
For example, there will be no motive power, no momentum, to level up standards of animal welfare, either in terms of rearing methods or animal transport. That will go by the board. The already high burden that is carried by British producers would be made that much more difficult in competitive terms, because every other member state with a large agricultural community would do everything it could to ensure that we were at a competitive disadvantage. Repatriation of British agricultural policy means repatriation of French, German and Italian agriculture support. The effect on our position in the wider market would be disastrous.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to Ministry of Agriculture red tape. At present, it is our most successful home-grown crop. The Minister himself has noticed that, over the past 16 years, it has grown apace—far more quickly, far more effectively than anything that is achieved in any other member state. Would that all be swept away by repatriation? I do not believe it for one minute. Consider the new consultation paper on the transport of livestock. It seems that nothing comparable is being produced in any other member state. We are binding our industry hand and foot in a way that is simply not experienced in other parts of the Union.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to say that his remedy was based on the old traditional slogan of the Conservative party, "Trust the Treasury". Anybody in agriculture, having seen last week's Budget, knows that to be moonshine. The Treasury cannot be trusted for one minute to look after British agriculture. If the Minister was in a quiet corner and was not on the record, I think that he would agree. Many former Ministers would also agree.
Consider last week's Budget. Incidentally, the Budget is now the only opportunity that the House has to consider in full the way in which agriculture and the rural community are being supported. All the schemes in the rural White Paper that are said to be beneficial or helpful to the rural policy of our country, to its development, to the enhancement of the environment and to employment prospects, are cut.
The hill livestock compensatory allowance will not be restored, against all the logic of previous Governments' positions. Dirty water schemes, essential for the pollution prevention schemes of the past, have all gone and will not come back. Farm and conservation grants have gone. Extensification and organic food supplies, which are being extensively supported by other national Governments in the union, for which purpose they can draw down European funds, have all gone.

293
All the highly targeted and well thought-through schemes for British agriculture, supported by those who believe in its future, have gone. They are at the mercy of the Chancellor. He can wield his axe over them. If it were not for the representations that we all make to the European Union, I suspect that the situation would be even worse.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government are now faced with a choice. In the past, their strategy for the union has been enlargement rather than deepening, widening rather than intensification. In those circumstances, I hope that they will today be able to give us a considered response to the extremely important new paper that has been delivered in the past few days by the Commissioner, Mr. Franz Fischler, in which he says, quite uncompromisingly, that there is no way in which the Union can enlarge to the east, to the former Communist countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia—until major structural reforms are made to the CAP's format. I understand that the Commissioner and other members of the Commission go further, saying that other structural changes of considerable importance will be necessary to the very institutions of the union itself.
Hitherto, Ministers have said that they can have their cake and eat it. They can delay reform of the CAP until a more propitious time, but they want to proceed with enlargement to the east as fast as possible. In an extremely important article in the Financial Times last week, headed, "No farm reform, no EU enlargement", it was made clear that that it is not just the view of the Commission, but widely shared among other member states, that radical reform is essential.
Let us not forget that that reform can be achieved by consensus as long as the structural problems are addressed at the same time, particularly the democratic deficit. The hon. Gentleman, and some of his hon. Friends—by whom I mean those who were rusticated in the recent departure into the countryside to which he referred—are fond of saying how important it is to retain the British veto. Retaining the British veto over social, economic, employment policy is all very well, but retaining the British veto over that means that the Greeks will seek to retain their veto over any real, deep-seated, far-reaching reforms of the CAP. The same will be true of the Italians and others.
I hope that we shall have an explicit commitment from the Minister today that, at the ministerial meetings that will be taking place in the next few weeks in preparation for the intergovernmental conference, the Government will make it a specific objective to put the reform of the CAP on the agenda for the IGC next year. That is of critical importance, not just for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but so that farmers can know that there is a long-term sustainable policy by which they can chart their course for the future.
10.16 am
Mr. Paul Marland: As in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the Register of Members' Interests will show that I too am walking on eggshells during this debate, so I shall be extremely careful in what I say and
294
not speak with too much authority on those subjects about which I know a great deal because I have studied them. I shall speak with great caution.
I have total common ground with my hon. Friend, but I must disagree with what he says about repatriating the CAP and giving each country more control over its agricultural policy. If the United Kingdom were to do that, we would marginalise ourselves in the European Community. That is something that the British farmers do not want—nor, I believe, do the British public and all those who work in industries which add value to foodstuffs. It would be a disaster. Some countries, as we have already seen, would favour their farmers at the expense of other farmers in Europe—I cannot say "within the Community", because, if we were to repatriate our own agricultural policy, we would not be in the Community.
We have seen examples of how discrimination or subsidy by other countries can disadvantage our business. At least within the CAP there is some method of enforcing a level playing field and stopping other countries blatantly subsidising their own agriculture. The French gave a 120 per cent. capital grant for the construction of a turkey processing plant in Brittany in order to swamp the British market with oven-ready turkeys. We were able to stop that. The French have also given special subsidies to their pig farmers, which has also been brought to a halt under the CAP.
The Dutch Government have subsidised heat for their glasshouses, which the European Community, under its policy to treat all countries the same, has also stopped. The Irish have in the past given special help to their mushroom growers, and the Agricultural Commissioner has taken considerable interest in sorting out that mess too.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, animal welfare would not be standardised throughout Europe, which would go very much against the grain of those interested in animal welfare and rights.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is talking about agricultural industrial products. There are in Europe and the single market constraints against some Governments subsidising their own industries while other Governments do not. I would imagine that the same principles would apply in future to agricultural industrial products, so my hon. Friend does not have to worry about that.
Mr. Marland: With respect, my hon. Friend is assuming too much. I assume that, if we repatriate agriculture to individual countries, there will be no controls whatever, and countries will be able to do what they wish with their own agriculture and agricultural production. That is the rub.
The CAP is expensive; it needs reforming and tightening up, so we are on common ground. That is happening, but not speedily. I agree with my hon. Friend that tobacco growing in Greece is utterly ludicrous and must stop. It is, however, important to keep matters in perspective.
The single market across Europe in agricultural products provides a great opportunity for British agriculture and those who add value to agricultural products in Britain to export into a free market. There are no tariff barriers against our exports into Europe. If we repatriated our own agricultural policy, tariff barriers might be erected against our exports. For example, the

295
export of lamb has improved enormously as a result of the efforts of British farmers exporting into France, and we now export 30 per cent. of our cereal production and a large and growing proportion of our beef production.
Turning to value added products, we all know about the British manufacturer exporting pizzas to Italy, but there is a mass of other products. It is interesting to look at one or two sectors in which value is being added to raw agricultural produce and the manufacturing industry attached to agriculture is making profits, adding value and creating wealth in Britain as a result of those activities.
We can buy prepared bags of salad containing a number of different varieties of lettuce and other salad products, all washed and ready for the table. One has only to open the bag and shake it up. Those are being exported, and rightly so. There is no reason why only British housewives should take advantage of those products. Potatoes of different varieties—large ones for putting straight in the oven and roasting, and small, new potatoes—are being washed, packaged and exported from the United Kingdom. Eggs of different varieties, sizes and colours are also packaged well and exported to Europe.
One may think that bottled water comes to Britain from Europe, especially from France, but an enormous amount of bottled water is exported from Britain into Europe, and many farmers have bottled water enterprises on their farms as alternative earners. We do not only import yoghurt from France and Europe. Value is added to raw milk in Britain to make expensive, value-added dairy products, and we export yoghurt to France, especially fibre-added yoghurt, which is being sold as a health food. Our industry has created an excellent opportunity for export into France, creating wealth and opportunity in Britain.
Branded cheeses such as double Gloucester, which is manufactured in Gloucestershire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) knows well, are also being exported.
Mr. Marlow: If we did not have such a ridiculous system of quotas, would we not be able to sell rather more branded cheeses in Europe and the rest of the world? My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I was saying that we should still have a free market for agricultural products in Europe. There is no way that there would be tariffs. Was my hon. Friend suggesting that I was saying that there should be tariffs?
Mr. Marland: My hon. Friend cannot say that for certain. In my hon. Friend's dream scenario, if we repatriate agricultural policy to individual countries, how will we know whether any country may decide in future to protect its own farmers and food manufacturers and erect a barrier so as to free exports of agricultural and fresh products?
Change is necessary to the common agricultural policy, but it should be gradual and fair, and should apply equally through all European countries. The present form of the CAP is working much better than it did in the past, and has reduced stocks of surplus food substantially. In my constituency in the Forest of Dean, an industrial estate in Lydney used to rent out massive warehouses for stockpiling surplus grain that had been bought in under the common agricultural policy and could not be sold.
Mr. Morley: It also happened in Scunthorpe.
Mr. Marland: It was bought in and stored at enormous expense, and exported at a knock-down price. That was even more costly than the current set-aside scheme, which seeks to reduce the output of cereals. I am not saying that the CAP is perfect—it needs reform—but there have been strides in that direction.
A balance is emerging in stabilised farm incomes in the United Kingdom, which have generally moved up in the past few year. That is a good thing for rural communities, because farmers do not sit on the cash; they spend it in the local rural community in which they are living and operating. That is good for maintaining population in isolated areas.
The overall budget of the CAP is now under stronger control than ever before, but fraud remains a serious problem, taking some 1 per cent. of the budget. It may be more than that, but that is a ball park figure. The Commission is determined to tackle the problem more rigorously than it has in the past, and we give it every support we possibly can. Perhaps Labour Members might have a word with Commissioner Kinnock, so that he might turn his attention to it when he has sorted out the air miles.
Further reform of the CAP is under way. That is inevitable, forced on by the enlargement of the European Union and another round of GATT in 1999. Increases in agricultural efficiency also drive forward the need for reform. Although we devote a smaller area to cereal production, improving techniques and methods of production, collection and storage make a terrific difference to the output in agriculture; whether it is an acre of land, a cow, a pig, or a flock of chickens, a variety of technical advantages are being made every year to make it more efficient. That represents another way of driving forward the reform of CAP.
The change in agricultural support must be given time to take effect, because agriculture is a business with a slow turnover. A cereal farmer turns over his entire stock only once a year, so notice has to be served on the producers of the products of what future changes will be made, so that they can plan ahead.
I am pleased that farm Commissioner Franz Fischler has confirmed that reform to the CAP is necessary, and that EU agriculture must become more market-oriented and closer to the market. That will undoubtedly lead to greater stability, security and dignity for farmers, and will enable payments for specific objectives to be targeted more accurately.
We are all in favour of more assistance for environmentally friendly schemes for environmental care, and for isolated areas to get special assistance for projects that may enhance the standard of living of the people in those communities.
I spent quite a bit of my holiday in isolated parts of the United Kingdom. On the island of North Uist, at a small town called Loch Maddy, there was a slaughterhouse that killed all the animals that were produced on the island. That had great appeal, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will know, because the animals were slaughtered on the island and not exported on the hoof. I understand that the slaughterhouse had to be closed because of changes in hygiene regulations.
It is a travesty that that little business should fail as a result of hygiene regulations if there is no money to seek to put it right. I very much hope that there may be some

297
way of targeting money on such schemes, instead of building a dual carriageway round the island of North Uist, which is currently being undertaken using European funds.
Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the past 10 to 15 years, the number of abattoirs in England, Wales and Scotland has halved as a result of the imposition of regulations emanating from London rather than Brussels, while in Northern Ireland, where those regulations have not been imposed, there has been nothing like the same reduction?
Mr. Marland: In some instances, that is a good thing. Some slaughterhouses were definitely not up to standard. However, the slaughterhouse on North Uist should have been saved, so as to create wealth and opportunity on the island and to ensure that the animals were killed at home rather than having to make a journey on the hoof.
It would be a huge mistake to repatriate the common agricultural policy. Reform is vital, however, and agriculture must get closer to the market and become much more market orientated. We must support reforms and fight against fraud. As I have said, we must take a step at a time. The House must maintain pressure to ensure that the CAP is reformed equally for all countries within the Community.
10.30 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: It is a great pleasure to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland). I congratulate him on his advocacy of British agriculture. He has illustrated the many great successes that British agriculture has chalked up.
My hon. Friend talked about farm incomes. British farmers are enjoying tolerably good incomes at present only as a consequence of the United Kingdom having been thrown out of the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September 1992. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, in spite of the common agricultural policy, farm incomes were falling. My hon. Friend referred to other issues, and made various comments to which I took exception. I would take them up if time permitted.
I have interests on both sides of the farm gate. These interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I hope that my declaration will be sufficient for the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) talked about the high cost of the CAP. Not least among my concerns is its wastefulness. It is wide open to fraud and abuse. I shall demonstrate that it is harmful to many interests. It is, of course, fundamentally socialist.
Members have already referred to the diabolical expenditure of taxpayers's money on growing tobacco in Greece that nobody can smoke. In the past, the CAP has encouraged enormous surpluses. Disposal of those surpluses has cost a great deal of taxpayers' money. The surpluses were a huge embarrassment to the Commission and to the Governments of member states.
FEOGA grants have created enormous problems in the abattoir industry, a sector of agriculture of which I know a little. The grants have created over-capacity. More than
298
anything else, the abattoir industry suffers from over-capacity. Unfortunately, that over-capacity has been encouraged by the availability of FEOGA grants. It has been forced upon the industry also by legislation emanating from Brussels.
Many of the FEOGA grants given to agriculture have disappeared with the enterprises to which they were made available. Many enterprises turned out to be non-viable or economically unsound. There has been a huge on-cost as a result of taxpayers' money being funnelled into unviable businesses. The cost has resulted in the rest of the industry being put at a severe commercial disadvantage.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the relatively tiny amount of money that is paid out by the taxpayer that actually reaches the practical farmer. I agree with his analysis. That, however, is the extent of my agreement. I cannot possibly agree with his further thoughts on the subject. I do not share his optimism that remaining in the CAP will lead to a resolution of the present difficulties.
We do not know the cost of fraud in the Community, which last year was estimated to be anything up to £6 billion. When the Court of Auditors reported last month, there was speculation that it might be only £2 billion. A national newspaper stated that the only quantifiable amount of fraud was £400 million. When it comes to fraud, we pay our penny and take our chance. There is no doubt, however, that fraud takes place. Various initiatives have been taken to control it.
The burden of controlling fraud falls not upon the Mafia or the big-time fraudsters but upon my constituents. For example, it falls upon the farmer in the Corvedale who owned two farms and handed them over to his two sons to be farmed as two separate entities. To this day, he cannot persuade the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the farms are two separate enterprises. Consequently, all his grants and subsidies are held up.
Control measures bear down heavily on a farmer near Bridgnorth, who has lost subsidy as a result of having made a mistake in his application form. He declared a heifer instead of a bullock. The cash would have been the same, but there has been disqualification because of the control measures that have been introduced. There are farmers in the Bishop's Castle area who have experienced enormous difficulties over their suckler cow subsidies, because the information they gave in their application forms was slightly wrong.
These are the people who are paying for the control measures which are introduced to counteract the fraud of the Mafia and the other big-time fraudsters who continue to defraud regardless.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in New Zealand had tremendous problems with form filling, and were being driven mad by bureaucracy? The New Zealand Government—incidentally, a Labour Administration—have dumped the subsidy system and returned to a free market. The New Zealand farmers are now doing wonderfully well without bureaucracy on their backs.
Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The New Zealand Government stopped subsidies. They also stopped many welfare payments. Why did they do so? They took that action because the money ran out. Having weaned the farmers and others off subsidies, the

299
New Zealand Government find that they have a much more vibrant economy than that of the United Kingdom or anywhere else in western Europe. They have a strong currency, low inflation and low unemployment. As I understand it, there is scarcely a farmer in New Zealand who wants to revert to the previous heavily subsidised system.
There are four reasons why the CAP is making things so difficult. As time is limited, I shall be brief in describing the harm that it is doing. It has had a disastrous effect on the pastoral economies of the third world. It negates the law of supply and demand. It is harmful to innovation in agriculture. It is almost immune to the real needs of the marketplace. It is socialist. It imposes quotas, specifies qualities and fixes prices. The end result was surpluses. We have tweaked the CAP again, with the result that there is more political interference and more of the planned economy, which is in great danger of creating shortages in the cereal market because of the introduction of set-aside.
I understand why the hon. Member for North Cornwall can support the CAP. Doubtless the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), will jump to his feet to support it. They should support it, because it is a socialist concept. I cannot understand, however, why a Conservative Government can be such a willing accomplice to Soviet-style central planning. It is simply naive to believe that the system is capable of reform. It is fundamentally flawed. It is impossible to police and control. It is hugely expensive. The public pay twice: once as taxpayers, and a second time as consumers.
All that is in complete contrast to the old British system, the deficiency payments scheme, which had the advantage of redistributing money. Money was taken from the taxpayer. It subsidised the production of food, which reached the marketplace at a cheaper price, to the ultimate benefit of those on low incomes. It was a good system.
We were told that we would persuade our continental partners to adopt that when we went into the European Community. We lost on that count, just as we have on so many others. To believe that one can reform the CAP is a triumph of hope over experience. It is time for those who advocate reform to stand up and spell out exactly what those reforms are. The onus is on those people, because the farming industry cannot prosper in this present state of uncertainty, and it certainly cannot go on if it continues to go further and further away from the realities of the marketplace.
10.40 am
Mr. Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on securing the debate today, as these are important issues—there is no denying that. There are severe problems with the CAP that need to be dealt with. It needs to be reformed. That is the position of the Labour party. I have to say, however, that it is going it a bit to describe the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), when he came back in 1992, as some kind of red commissar presiding over a centrally planned economy within the CAP and the European Union. That is somewhat stretching the point.
Although I listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully—indeed, the argument for repatriation is a position that has been taken by a number of
300
commentators, and there are a number of options for reform—the concept of repatriation and a free market are a contradiction in terms. One cannot have repatriation of European funds to member states and allow them to subsidise different sectors of agriculture in different countries, and then hope to have a free market on a level playing field. That just could not be done. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
I have a constituency interest in the pig and poultry sector. Although there is a little truth in what the hon. Gentleman said about the poultrymeat sector, in the pig sector there has been a major move to extensive field systems, and that is a welcome change in terms of pork production. So he can eat pork with a clear conscience in terms of the way in which it is produced in this country.
I was also surprised with the storyline in "The Archers", which has been touched on. The story was that, although Brian Aldridge lost his £9,500, he was receiving an integrated administration and control system cheque for nearly £110,000, and that caused particular offence to another character, a business man whose business had gone bust in the recession.
As he pointed out, the whole idea of the changes in 1992 was to give compensation to the area payments for reduced prices, yet cereal prices have gone up. It is true that is partly as a result of the fallout in the devaluation of the pound—there is no denying that—but there is no doubt whatever that, in the arable sector at the moment, it is a win-win situation for farmers. Indeed, the monthly IACS cheques are just like monthly lottery wins in some sectors.
Mr. Marlow: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the policy of the Labour party that large farmers should not get compensation for land that is taken out of production?
Mr. Morley: It is certainly the policy of the Labour party that we should move away from production subsidies. I want us to be absolutely clear about that. Although we recognise that there is a need for agriculture support in certain sectors, we believe that there are better ways of doing that. I will touch on those in a moment.
When approaching the issue, it does not help to take a negative isolationist view within the European Union. I notice that, in Farming News, Sir David Naish said:
"Internal sniping by politicians is jeopardising Britain's chances to win allies before next year's EU inter-governmental conference".
He continued:
"And that made it extremely difficult for the NFU to make its case for UK agriculture within Europe".
Although there is a perfectly respectable case for arguing the different ways of approaching reform of the CAP, it does not help to be in the Government's situation, split between the different wings—the Euro-sceptics and the Europhobes. That has paralysed their approach to the way in which it should be done.
To be fair, the hon. Members for Northampton, North and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have won their arguments with the Conservative party in many ways. The Government are the prisoner of the right. They have moved towards the positions of other Conservative Members in the campaign that they have been running. It is the first time that a Government have gone cap in hand to a group of rebels rather than withdrawing the Whip.

301
The Labour party recognises the problems of the CAP, and they are also recognised in Europe. In a recent report, Mr. Fischler stated that there was a need for simplification of the CAP. He went on to say that it has
"become quite complicated over time, and increasing complexity has made policy management increasingly difficult. In addition it has led to a negative image of the CAP in public opinion (complicated, opaque, bureaucratic, not understandable, open to abuse and fraud)".
He is absolutely right, and I am pleased to see that it is recognised at the highest levels of European policy-making. I very much want to see something stem from that.
I make it clear that we in the Labour party are committed to radical reform of the CAP. We are not afraid to argue for that, both in this country and within the European Union. But the difference between the Labour party and the Government is that we have allies in the European Union, and we can find consensus in terms of getting that agreement.
We want to uncouple agricultural support from production. We want an end to quotas. We believe that set-aside is a negative use of public funds, except when it is used for conservation purposes—long-term set-aside. We want to move towards world pricing for agricultural products.
We also recognise that there is a need for support, but, as part of the change within the CAP budget, we want to see the available funds redirected towards environmental support, and—perhaps as important—support for the wider rural economy, in creating jobs and supporting businesses. We want to recognise the problems of upland farms and their needs. Although we want to press for radical change, we believe that we can encourage and support the approach towards a better rural environment with the funds available.
If one contrasts that positive approach with that of the Government and their priorities on CAP reform, one will see that, according to their Budget statement, within the areas where they have some influence of reform, they want to cut the EC surplus food scheme altogether; restrict eligibility for the R3 carcases category—a stunning 3 per cent. reduction in the number of carcases available—withdraw from the school milk scheme; end the EC processing and marketing grants scheme; end the fisheries grants; and cut back on research and development, at a time when there is a great deal of consumer concern about food, and there is a pressing need for R and D in all areas of agriculture.
That is a glimpse of the Government's priorities for reform—snatch the milk from our nation's schoolchildren, mug our pensioners and poor for the cheap butter and mince, and invite redundancies from our major team of scientists who are doing vital work on research on the risk to consumers from bovine spongiform encephalopathy. At a time when everyone in the agriculture sector agrees on the need for increased marketing and added value, particularly in developing a high-value meat export trade and moving away from live exports, funds through European Union schemes are to be axed.
I have seen at first hand the advantages of the marketing and processing scheme in expanding food companies, both in my constituency and nationally, including Lincolnshire.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to do away with production subsidies. Does he count area payments for arable farmers as production subsidies? If he does, and he is to do away with them, what agriculture support will he offer in the arable area?
Mr. Morley: Area payments are a negative use of public money. I do not think that they are efficient. Indeed, they do not meet the hon. Gentleman's criteria. He was talking about money going to large farms instead of small farms, but the area aid system works against that.
I know that there are arguments both for and against modulation, as it is called, but the hon. Gentleman says that he wants more support for small farmers, and the present system of arable aid payments will not achieve that. We want a support system that is based on giving farmers the opportunity to opt into various environmental support and management programmes—and, of course, an extension of the existing environmentally sensitive area schemes, which we have long supported. We believe that they have a very useful role to play.
Reform must have a social and environmental objective. We must seek consensus and co-operation with our European partners in order to secure change of that kind. It can be done with good will and determination, but it will not be done if we act on the basis of opting out, adopt negative attitudes, criticise and insult foreigners at party conferences. That is why it cannot be done by the present Government.
10.50 am
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for giving the House an opportunity to debate the important issues surrounding the common agricultural policy. We have had a thoughtful and informed debate, in which constructive speeches have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and a range of philosophical approaches to both agriculture and Europe have been aired.
The current common agricultural policy has few supporters in this country. It attracts much criticism. It costs taxpayers a great deal of money; it raises food prices for consumers, albeit not by as much as is sometimes claimed; it is vulnerable to fraud; and it imposes a number of bureaucratic restrictions and controls on farmers that increasingly limit their initiative. It disadvantages both our farming industry and the food industry that relies on its products.
For those reasons, we have long pressed for reform of the CAP. There has been some progress. First, owing largely to United Kingdom pressure, a ceiling on CAP spending has been in place since 1988, and only unanimity can alter it. That single change has helped the proportion of the EU's budget that is spent on agriculture to fall from nearly 70 per cent. in the late 1980s to 50 per cent. now.
Secondly, in 1992, CAP reforms dramatically reduced cereal and beef support prices, and reduced the reliance on intervention as a market management mechanism. Those changes have contributed to the almost complete elimination of the food mountains of the past. Intervention stocks of frozen beef in the EU stood at nearly 1 million tonnes early in 1993, and are now down to a minimal

303
12,000 tonnes. Intervention stocks of cereals in the EU totalled nearly 32 million tonnes two years ago; the total last month was under 5 million tonnes.
Thirdly, and most important for the future, the United Kingdom played a major part in ensuring a successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round negotiations, including a far-reaching agreement on agriculture. That agreement set world agricultural trade on a liberalising course, and paved the way for further market-led reforms of the CAP.
Fourthly, the United Kingdom has argued strongly and successfully for better controls on CAP fraud and financial mismanagement. We have secured the adoption of several tough pieces of legislation, including the CAP "blacklist" regulation. There has also been a 50 per cent. increase in the reporting of irregularities, and much tougher action by the Commission—in the form of disallowance of spending—when member states' controls are found to be inadequate. That is extremely welcome.
The United Kingdom is leading the debate in Europe on CAP reform. The report of the CAP review group has been widely read throughout Europe. We have set out our aims clearly in the rural White Paper, published in October. Our overriding objective is to secure an efficient, prosperous, competitive and outward-looking agriculture that can operate and compete in increasingly open world markets, providing high-quality raw materials at competitive prices and paying due regard to the environment.
I do not think that there can be any dispute with our aims. In the discussions that I have held with farmers and their representatives, there is a basic and general recognition that the CAP is bound to change, and that their interests—all our interests—lie in a more open, market-oriented policy in which UK farmers, because of their efficiency and competitiveness, will be in a strong position to do well.
Many farmers are understandably concerned about the number of bureaucratic controls that now seem to be part and parcel of the CAP. Some of those controls are necessary to protect public money and reduce the opportunity for fraud; others are there because of artifical constraints on production, and are more difficult to defend. Creating the conditions in which quotas, set-aside and other supply controls can be removed will lift a major burden of bureaucracy from our farming industry.
In our view, that must be the way forward. It will mean continuing the process of progressively reducing production-related support, bringing EU support much closer to world market levels. That would substantially reduce the economic costs of the policy, and allow the eventual abolition of supply controls.
It does not mean renationalising the CAP; nor can radical changes in policy be introduced overnight. Reform must be introduced steadily, at a pace with which farmers can reasonably be expected to cope, and it must be Europewide. It will be no less important under a reformed CAP than it is now to ensure that member states cannot give their farmers national subsidies to snatch illicit competitive advantage: a level playing field is an imperative.
We do not seek to do away with a common policy for agriculture in the European Union. That would not be in our interests. It is also clear that cuts in production-related support will not be negotiable without some compensation
304
for the farmers who are affected. Our aim will be to ensure that such compensation is fully uncoupled from production, is time-limited, and does not discriminate against United Kingdom farmers.
Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that absent from this feast of information about the CAP is any mention of our urban population, whose taxes are paying for all this? Because of the CAP's inefficiency, they are being forced to pay through the nose for their food, to the tune of around £25 a week. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend clearly was not listening to what I said at the beginning of my speech. I said that the CAP had few supporters in this country, that it cost taxpayers a great deal of money, and that it disadvantaged both our farming industry and consumers—and that, for those reasons, we had long pressed for its reform, which we intend to secure.
A reformed CAP will also need to place more emphasis on environmental concerns, although we must always remember that the primary purpose of farming is food production. The 1992 reforms introduced several important environmental elements, most in response to United Kingdom pressure. Future reforms will need to build on those, reflecting the importance that the public attach to the conservation and enhancement of our farmed environment. Such a package of reforms is coherent and logical, and the right way forward.
Alas, our approach is not yet universally shared by other member states, many of which are broadly happy with the way in which the CAP operates at present and would prefer to consider that the 1992 reforms were upheaval enough. It is, however, becoming increasingly clear that, as we move towards the 21st century, pressures for change will intensify.
The EU's existing GATT ceilings on subsidised exports will exert pressure on the policy, and without reform, growing surpluses could again begin to emerge. The next round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, which are due to start in 1999 and are designed to take further the process of trade liberalisation and subsidy reduction, will increase those pressures.
The forthcoming enlargement of the EU to include the countries of central and eastern Europe will also be an important factor. Extending the current CAP to those countries would be prohibitively expensive for the EC budget, and would further increase the danger of growing surpluses; it would also be contrary to the interests of the aspirant countries, whose economies could not afford the high prices and economic distortions associated with the CAP.
Against that background, I welcome the European Commission's new report on agriculture and the accession of the central and eastern European countries to the EU. That report is to be presented to the European Council in Madrid later this month.
Although it does not go as far as it should have, the report marks an important change in policy, recognising the validity of much of what we United Kingdom Ministers have been saying for some time. It makes it clear that prolonging the status quo is not a feasible option. and that further reform of the CAP must come. Our task now must be to build on that important step, and persuade our partners in Europe of our vision of reform. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be urging

305
his colleagues in Madrid to ensure that the European Commission's work is taken forward expeditiously. Inevitably, it will take some years to achieve the sort of CAP changes that we think are necessary, but I strongly believe that the changes that we are promoting are in the interests of farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the country as a whole, and we shall continue to fight for the interests of farmers and consumers whenever we can.

Young People Leaving Care
10.59 am
Mr. Paul Flynn: This morning's bitter weather is a reminder that many people in this city and throughout this land will be sleeping on the streets tonight. Sadly, a high proportion of them will have been in care.
Three reasons make this debate crucial and timely. The first concerns the reminders that we have had in the West trial. The pitiful vulnerability of young, defenceless people was exposed to us all in the stark horror of that trial, which has invaded all our imaginations with fearful images of young people who were unprotected and who faced people such as the West family. We know now that 10,000 people leave care every year. Many of them disappear into the urban jungles of our cities. No one would notice if they discontinued their existence in this world. No one cares about them. That position was well recognised before the Children Act 1989 was passed.
The second reason, and it is the urgent one, is the cold cynicism of yesterday's Budget cut in the already paltry income of young impoverished people. In future, they will have to share accommodation, possibly with complete strangers, robbing them of what they need: safety, privacy and the stability of life. The Government should hang their heads in shame about the reasons that they came to that decision. We have read the leaked published correspondence from the Secretary of State for Social Security, in which he has announced his despair, talked about the chaos in his Department, but identified a housing benefit cut for young people as an easy option. They are a soft target. In a giveaway Budget, where billions of pounds were given to people who were well off already, the Government put in that mean cut against people and against all the evidence that the House and its Committees have heard of how the abolition of income support entitlement for 16 and 17 year-olds damages that group of young people.
The third reason is the encyclopedia of evidence that the Children Act is not working. Dozens of organisations—and I thank them for the help that they have given me in relation to this debate—have prepared searching reports on the Act's effects. It is now six years since it passed through the House and four years since its implementation. There were high, idealistic and practical ambitions for that Act, which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the shadow of failure falls between that dream and the reality. There has been some success—of course, there are examples of good practice. There is a fine after-care team in my constituency, but it is one of the few: only two operate in Wales—but there are also huge deserts of Great Britain in which there is little happening with the Children Act. We must rethink it, because the cause of its failure will be multiplied by yesterday's Budget cuts.
The third problem is the shift of spending from national to local government, which will mean an horrendous problem in Wales. where we are going through local government reorganisation, with an already fragile system is passing from eight county councils to 22 unitary authorities. We must ask: where will after-care support come in the list of their priorities? I have written to all the authorities in Wales and I fear that, despite the great

307
ocean of good will that exists there, with the problems of finance, the after-care of people leaving foster homes and care institutions is a low priority.
Every year, 10,000 people leave care. Many of them are denied adequate support, adequate money and decent accommodation. Often, they are bewildered and damaged by their experience and are pitchforked from full-time care into little more than full-time neglect. Their experience is different from that of the children of most hon. Members. They leave our family homes at an average age of 22 and often they come back. There are often strong links there, but how on earth can we expect 60 per cent. of these young children, who have been hit with every misfortune that life can offer, to set up a fully independent life at the age of 16 to 17?
Those young children take on such adult responsibilities at that immature age at the same time as they are moving from school to a job, unemployment or a training scheme—another traumatic move. They are moving from an institutional life where they were financially dependent in all their decisions to responsibility for managing a woefully meagre budget. At the same time, there is a collapse of their network of friends, teachers and acquaintances when they go into an alien environment in which that support is not there. In addition, they face what all young people face: all the bewildering problems of adolescence.
Only the strongest characters can come through that. Many of them do so unscathed, but that says a great deal for them. This morning, I met a group of six care leavers for the first time and they are all bright, highly intelligent and highly articulate young people, but they share another characteristic: they are full of anger at a system that has robbed them of part of their childhood and of their early adolescence, and that has heaped unreasonable burdens on them when they should be enjoying the prime of their lives.
Remarkably, many such young people go into care work. I am sure that those who have experienced care themselves are the most able in such work, so I do not want to add to the negative image of care leavers. There is a problem involved in that: the public perception is poor. There is a great wall and a cliff of public prejudice against such people, who are reluctant to say that they have been in care, but many come out of this and we want to take a positive line and rejoice in those who, unscathed, have come through the problems that we as a society have heaped on them.
The figures are startling and depressing. Thirty per cent. of single homeless people have experienced care. A study of homeless care leavers by Centrepoint found that more than half of those surveyed became homeless immediately after leaving care, and that nearly all of them had on some occasions slept rough. Imagine doing that yesterday evening or tonight.
A study by Leeds university found that more than a third of its sample had incomes of less than £30 a week and that only 7 per cent. earned more than £70 a week. The research also found that, in 1993, 22 per cent. of males and 16 per cent. of females aged 16 to 19 in the general population were unemployed. However, between a third and a half of its sample of care leavers were unemployed, so they are suffering disproportionately.
A survey by Save the Children found that more than half the respondents were not encouraged to continue with their education, and that 40 per cent. had no help in
308
finding a job with curriculum vitae, application forms and letters, in an increasingly competitive world of job search for young people.
Care leavers are at greater risk of offending and of getting into other activities than other young people. According to First Key, 23 per cent. of adult prisoners and 38 per cent. of young prisoners said that they had had experience of local authority care as a child, although less than 1 per cent. of them were taken into care because they were offending. If people are not stirred by our pleas on the grounds of common humanity and compassion, perhaps they will accept the argument on the ground of the damage that we are doing to society by providing inadequate care. The Minister has the uncaring, flinty exterior of all Conservative Prime Ministers, but inside there is a warm, compassionate human being fighting to get out. I hope that he will succeed.
The Minister knows about the lack of preparation and support for those leaving care. I have no wish to give instant remedies and condemn everyone. Many marvellous people whose life's work is care devote their time, energies and skills to it and achieve great things. But the general picture condemns us all. There is inadequate preparation for leaving care, and the lack of support is revealed by the Save the Children survey. It showed that 60 per cent. of respondents lacked life skills on leaving care. Half of them did not know how to manage their money, and nearly a quarter did not know how much things cost. We are failing in that vital area. Although all those matters were identified during the passage of the Children Act six years ago, according to the whole catalogue of research that has been published, we have not succeeded in changing the system to any great degree.
According to the Save the Children survey:
"The amounts young people received ranged from nothing to £1,800 with most receiving under £1,000 … from 'Don't know'—gave me £5 and some sandwiches and said I don't want to see you again".
The young care leaver received some money in the form of vouchers.
Through savings while young people are in care, by postponing the age of leaving care, to which I shall shortly come, and by ensuring financial responsibility through running a budget, people should be taught, not in one fell swoop but over a long time, the great skills of managing their finances. A report from Leeds university states that a survey of 102 local authorities found that only 42 per cent. offered an automatic leaving care grant. Of the remainder, some operated a discretionary system. Matters can only get worse following the shift of spending from central Government back to local government and the enormous challenges that local government will face in the next financial year.
There are positive aspects, because good preparation and support has plainly had a wonderful effect. The research by Leeds university showed that leaving care schemes are beneficial to young people when they are properly organised, especially in securing good accommodation and improving life skills. One care leader from west Glamorgan made plain the difference that decent accommodation made to her when she said about her new flat:
"It is the best property I have ever had. It makes me feel proud of myself."
Public prejudice on the issue must be tackled. A MORI poll found that almost all those who were surveyed would not risk employing someone from a care background.

309
More than half of the young people surveyed by Save the Children said that they rarely told anyone that they had been in care. That is the truth, ugly as it is, and the Government and the country must work to get rid of the foolish and damaging wall of prejudice. It makes no sense and greatly hurts the life chances of young people who have already faced so many challenges in life.
I have made some study of the position in Wales. I wrote to all the local authorities there and read all the reports that have been made, especially that by Dr. Hutson of the university of Glamorgan. She points to the unevenness of the situation in Wales and mentions the two excellent teams in Wales. There were cases of great distress among the young people whom she interviewed.
The feature of all these reports, most of which have been published within the past year, is the evidence from young people. It was not a case of academics telling us what was going on or laying down theories; the reports contain practical quotations about what has been happening to young people. That is the strength of every report. Leaping from the pages are pictures of young people's faces, and their words are used to describe what has happened to them. All of them talk about running out of money because of lack of organisation. There are images of young people sitting in the dark because they have run out of tokens or money and have no gas or electricity.
Welsh care leavers were dumped in unsuitable accommodation. One young care leaver from west Glamorgan said of private rented accommodation:
"The other bloke in the room was a rapist"—
and also apparently drunk most of the time—
"I couldn't take my girlfriend there … It's a dump. The windows are coming out. The walls are damp. The electric fire is expensive."
A young woman who wanted a flat in Pontypridd where she had been in care was told by the council to take a flat in the Rhondda. Three months later the council knocked the flat down.
I wrote to the Minister in August about these matters and about the need for mandatory monitoring. The Government and local authorities do not know what happens to care leavers or where they have gone. We could well be replicating the West tragedy many times over and nobody would know. There is an overwhelming case for a check, because we have to know the whereabouts of everyone who has left care.
It is said that young people have gained A-levels and degrees and now say, "We are adults now and we do not want to be mothered." One such young person said to me, "I would like someone to knock on the door now and again to ask me how I feel and whether I am all right." Care even on that basic level would be an improvement. The Minister said that some young people might not welcome it, but it is not compulsory for those who make it clear that they are managing perfectly well on their own. The problem is with the many young people who have disappeared from the system, and unless there is mandatory monitoring there will be no major improvement.
In his letter, the Minister said:
"Whilst we would expect local authorities to adopt an active stance on this issue, the introduction of a statutory requirement would be inappropriate, because there will be those care leavers who do not seek, wish, or require continuing support services from local authorities."
310
That may be true and such young people do not have to accept those services, but they should at least be available, and at present they are not: it is up to local authorities to do their own thing. The Minister's argument is not at all convincing and I hope that his thoughts have advanced a little since August.
In his fair-minded way, the Minister states:
"I fully accept that there is some way to go before we can be satisfied with the level of provision in all local authorities."
That is as much of an admission of failure as one is likely to get from a Minister, and I welcome it. The Minister's letter continues:
"progress is being made and I am sure this will be maintained."
We all have one chance of life, youth and adolescence and we cannot continue in this leisurely way by saying, "Things are getting better, they arc slowly picking up." By the time that young people leaving care today have reached adulthood, their lives could be damaged irreparably by lack of provision. We cannot rely on a slow evolutionary improvement. Action has to be taken now. One new development is the requirement that health education services contribute to the planning process to help children who are leaving care. That was mentioned in a recent paper, and perhaps we can debate that.
Many hon. Members who are in the Chamber made creative and productive contributions to the Children Act, and it was felt that progress was being made when the Act was passed. However, in many areas the situation has not improved: it has deteriorated. A recent survey by the social services inspectorate found that more local authorities now have leaving-care teams, and at least, 50 per cent. of social services departments have some form of monitoring system.
That is fine, but a national survey by the Aftercare Consortium, which attempted to assess the situation after the implementation of the Children Act, came to a much more negative conclusion. Although most of the people working on care projects reported that there was a leaving care policy in their area, they said that it was not always followed up. The survey also found that only in the affordability of supported lodgings and the availability of leaving-care grants had any real improvement been made between 1992 and 1993 in the provision for care leavers, and in the case of leaving-care grants, improvement had only been slight.
Significant deterioration was found in nine areas of provision: housing, benefits, income support for under 18-year-olds, community care grants, social fund loans, education grants, financial support during vacations, youth training, and employment and financial support from social services. That is an horrendous list of areas in which the provision has not improved—it has not increased as the Minister has suggested. It has in fact deteriorated according to the Aftercare Consortium report.
One of the main problems with the Children Act is the fact that is does not ring-fence funding. Also, the provision of services is very much at the discretion of each authority. According to First Key,
"The Children Act provisions need to be amended to give strength to the current duties to prepare young people for leaving care and to advise, assist and befriend them once they have left care.
The primary reason for the failure and poor quality of preparation for leaving care is that the provision of services relies on discretionary interpretation of powers. Local authorities"—

311
now more than ever—
"faced with the demands of child protection services and more recently community care legislation are prioritising their constrained resources and leaving care services are losing out. Consequently, there is a credibility gap",
between the rhetoric and the reality, between the belief in what is being provided and the considerably lower level of services that result.
The Act was supposed to improve things for care leavers—that was its whole purpose—but it has not done so, due to the position of local authorities. As we know, under the Act local authorities are required to provide befriending services for care leavers up to the age of 21, but that is very rarely done. If local authorities fail to provide such services, they are breaking the law. The Act has failed, and the Minister must accept that. There should be a statutory duty on local authorities to provide services for young people leaving care.
We know all about the various problems with social services departments and the difficulties that they have in so many other areas of work, but I wish that the Government would consider reversing the planned housing benefit change. If it cannot be reversed—unfortunately, it seems that it cannot—the Government should instruct local authorities to interpret it in such a way that every after-care leaver is automatically considered a hardship case. That seems to be one of the only ways in which one can guarantee that progress will be made and young people will get a fair deal.
We are seeking some undertakings from the Minister on improvements that should be made to that Act. We want to hear that he will introduce mandatory monitoring for local authorities, they he will decide to say to them that the money they receive is ring-fenced and that it must go towards services for those who leave care. We want some indication from him that he recognises the failure of the Act and the need to introduce reforms.
Many areas of reform are being pressed on him by Community Care and concerned groups, which would ensure that people who leave care do not enter a period of steep decline in their fortunes and Members could look with pride on their work. Images of young people such as the haunting one of the young lady who said that she was virtually expelled from a community care home at the age of 17—with all her possessions in a black plastic bag, a fiver in her pocket and the message, "We hope never to see you again," ringing in her ears—is shameful to the House and to the country. We must do far better
11.25 am
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to be called in this important debate. I am sorry that, at this stage, only the Minister and the Whip are on the Conservative Benches. Certainly, Opposition Members are concerned; they believe, rightly, that the subject of this debate has to be addressed. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on his passionate and well-researched speech.
My thoughts are based on a number of experiences, partly to do with my background as a Front-Bench spokesman over three years. For part of that time, I shadowed the Minister, whom I respect. I recognise that he is interested in and cares about this issue. Although I would not say that about many of his hon. Friends, I think that he has genuinely attempted to look in detail at the matter and to listen to people's concerns.
312
Like me, he has met many young people who have been through the care process and has addressed conferences of young people. Indeed, I pay tribute to the articulate voice of the young people who have left care and have organised themselves in a number of ways to press, quite rightly, for changes to the circumstances that they have experienced and that others are still experiencing.
As the Minister and my hon. Friend knows, I also have personal experience of social work—over almost 20 years before I entered Parliament. It is very interesting to meet as adults people whom I took into care as babies. Talking to them about their life experiences in the care system is very traumatic. When I was a very young man, I was responsible in some instances for taking decisions about their lives. They were taken into care as babies on the assumption that the care system would offer them something better than they would otherwise have had. From meeting the one or two whom I know now and listening to their experiences, I have to say that I am afraid that the system has let many of them down very badly. I feel deeply about that because clearly I have some responsibility for their lives and the way in which they have been treated. Many have undergone all sorts of appalling experiences that should not happen to anybody.
The issue is brought home to me regularly by my wife, who works for an organisation in Leeds called Caring For Life, which is concerned with addressing specifically the needs of young people leaving care and attempts to care for them for life. That is a key factor, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West demonstrated, once they leave the system, many are dropped, forgotten about and allowed to undergo appalling experiences. Some go into the penal system, to disappear for ever—sadly, sometimes in such circumstances as the recent events in Gloucester.
Many others have gone through very bad experiences—not perhaps as bad as those in Gloucester—and have ended up in an environment that is totally unacceptable in this day and age. My wife's work has brought home to me the need for immense improvements along the lines of those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
On entering Parliament in 1987, I had the great privilege of being involved in the passage of the Children Bill. It was one of the first major pieces of legislation on which I worked. There was all-party consensus that that Bill offered a major improvement in protecting children and in alleviating the plight of people leaving care. Despite that cross-party support and the whole-hearted endorsement of the House, one or two reservations were expressed about the Bill.
One reservation mentioned by my hon. Friend was the limited time and responsibility that the Bill devoted to care leavers. I served on the Standing Committee and I remember the attempts by a number of Opposition Members to persuade the Government to extend those responsibilities in the way referred to by my hon. Friend. In that respect, and despite the great success of the Act in many other ways, our concerns have proved justified.
Another fundamental weakness, which is much more difficult to overcome, is that the Act fails to require a co-ordinated approach, both nationally and locally, to child protection and to services for children and young persons. One department, at either Government or local level, should not be able to initiate something that has not taken into account the responsibilities of other departments. The benefit changes initiated by the Departments of Social

313
Security and of Health are examples of that. I do not believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), acceded to the benefit changes—I know him too well. He understands as well as I do the impact that those changes will have on young people leaving care.
A classic example of a lack of policy co-ordination between Government Departments can be seen today. After this debate, I shall be serving on a Statutory Instrument Committee discussing a Government proposal to remove the social work training element from the qualifying courses for probation officers. That might appear to be irrelevant to what we are discussing this morning, but it is not. Unfortunately, a number of the people with whom probation officers have to deal have offended as a result of difficulties which they faced very early in their lives and which, sadly, have led them to end up in the penal system. I am sure that, privately, the Minister would not disagree with a word of what I am saying.
I become angry when I hear the latest proposals from the Home Office—the tough approach, going back to the short, sharp, shock treatment that was such a miserable failure. I know that because one of the experimental camps was in my constituency. Now, the Government want to bring in boot camps. The same kids will be going through those camps—they are the kids who have gone through the care system. Sadly, I see some of them in Wakefield prison serving life sentences.
We must tackle the problems much earlier. If we fail to do that, we will have to try to deal with them through the penal system, which is a much more expensive process. I appeal to the Minister to fight his corner against some of the nonsense that we hear from some of his colleagues in the Home Office. He knows that it will permanently damage some already damaged young people.
That point will be made in Committee this afternoon. I hope that we carry the day, but I fear that we will not. The Minister understands why social work training should be part of the probation officers' brief. They are dealing with social work issues and with some very damaged people who need skilled intervention. I mean no disrespect to ex-police officers or ex-Army officers, but I cannot accept the suggestion that authoritarian-style people, marching up and down and shouting like a serjeant-major can deal with very damaged people. The Government's own figures prove that. We have a very effective probation service with social work training which steers people away from the penal system.
No doubt other hon. Members will want to expand on the implications of the income support changes on young people. I know of many examples where they have resulted in immense difficulty for young people leaving care. The housing benefit changes that are due to take effect on 2 January next year and the restrictions on hardship payments will specifically impact on care leavers. The Minister should tell his colleagues at the DSS, loudly and clearly, what the Chancellor's proposals will mean for the sort of people about whom we are talking.
I am not simply pointing a finger at different Government Departments; I am aware that there is a lack of collaboration and co-ordination locally. In October 1991, two years after the implementation of the Children Act 1989, I did a survey of all English local authorities.
314
I discovered that, at that stage, only three of them had developed cross-departmental strategies on family policy. It is not just Government Departments but local authority departments that do not talk to each other, and even sometimes contradict each other.
There is a lack of clarity about the role of social service departments and housing departments, especially in relation to the definition of "vulnerability". I wish that I had a pound for every case that I have come across of a dispute between a housing department and a social services department about whether a young person is vulnerable. It is my view that, by definition, if a young person has been through the care system and is leaving it, he must be vulnerable. People must be vulnerable if we have intervened in their lives and placed them in the care system. They are disadvantaged and worthy of additional support and care when they leave the system.
Many local authorities have worked hard to overcome the problems. I know that many of them have tried desperately to improve the plight of young persons leaving care, but they have to wrestle with the local consequences of Government policy. Housing policy is probably the most important area, and there has been a complete rundown in investment in social housing. Whether it be housing associations or local authority housing programmes, there is no doubt that the housing stock for people in social need has been markedly reduced. That has impacted on young people leaving care.
Of course, it is easy for the Opposition to argue that the Government do not invest enough money and that there is a lack of resources. However, the Minister talks to local social services departments and he will have been told of the way in which the child care budget has been raided to prop up the huge demands resulting from the community care changes. There is a ring-fenced community care budget, but not a ring-fenced child care budget. Social services departments have told me that they have had to move resources away from care leavers and child protection to meet the massive demands of the community care changes.
The Minister should consider education policies and their impact on young people in care and leaving care. There has been a huge increase in the number of exclusions of young people from schools. Many of them have been through very difficult home circumstances and some have ended up in care, yet they are excluded from school. There is now a climate of league tables. They show academic success, but they do not show the nature of a school's clientele. They do not highlight the difficulties faced by schools and the admirable way in which they deal with them. Unfortunately, in some cases schools are only too happy to exclude certain pupils. I know that some of those within the care system are easily excluded because the difficult circumstances that they have experienced occasionally show in their behaviour at school.
It is sad that the current education environment is not conducive to supporting many of the young people about whom we are concerned in this debate. There has been a move towards local management of schools and grant-maintained status. Social services departments and teachers have told me that that has resulted in less willingness to participate in collaboration on child

315
protection and the care of vulnerable young people. Those are wider policy issues that need to be considered in this debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about education. However, is it not true that within the care system there may be provision for young people to have leisure and television rooms, but no place that they may use for study? That point must be within the remit of the Department.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The educational needs of young people, especially those in the care system, are often overlooked. We look after the more basic caring needs, without really considering other needs. I know some people who, despite all the disadvantages, are highly academic and have gone to college or university and done very well. We must give them credit for having overcome those disadvantages.
There are three specific points which summarise the present position and, in making them, I am very much reliant on my wife's experiences and on her feelings about where we need to go in respect of young persons leaving care.
First, there is the question of preparation. We still do not properly prepare young people in the care system for the kind of life that they will face when they leave care. Hon. Members should think about what they were like when they were 16. Could they cook or sew? There are some of us in our 40s who still cannot cook or sew.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Some people in their 60s cannot do that.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. If hon. Members could not have carried out those tasks at 16, why should we expect young people who have gone through far worse experiences in their childhood to be able to do so? Cooking, budgeting, use of leisure time and choosing the right company are all important. It is easy to be placed in accommodation in certain areas where the company is not particularly positive, and we must look at that issue.
Suitable housing is the second crucial point, and it is not just a case of putting somebody in a flat. In many instances, that person needs supervised lodgings, or perhaps a motherly landlady. The third and final point is that the person leaving care needs somebody in loco parentis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West mentioned, we need to pinpoint somebody who will follow the young person through after leaving care.
My wife's organisation, Caring for Life, cares—or attempts to care—for life for the many people who will always need on-going care. Many people do not need on-going care throughout adulthood, but many others do. We need a person to be pinpointed who can provide that support.
My main point is that we clearly lack a national strategy of co-ordination which can resolve all the boundary disputes which result in people falling between the different agencies. More than ever, we need collaboration between local authority departments. We need a Minister whose remit ranges across Government Departments to ensure that there is a national strategy for young people in these circumstances.
I believe that the Children Act was a very important move forward, and I commend the present Minister's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Putney (Mr.
316
Mellor)—who was very much involved in the passage of the legislation. He listened to the concerns of many people, and amended the legislation accordingly. That Act was a major step forward, but—as the Minister will be aware—there is still a long way to go in addressing the needs of young people in care.
11.41 am
Mr. Frank Cook: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on creating the opportunity for the House to consider these matters today. He has done a remarkable job, and I commend him on his complete, well-measured and well-prepared speech. I must also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on following the matter up so effectively.
Indeed, if we put the speeches of my hon. Friends together, there is not a hell of a lot left for Opposition Front Benchers to say, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who winds up for the Opposition. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Wakefield made astonishingly complete, compassionate and considerate contributions, and I am very pleased that I was here to hear them.
I must also register my gratitude to the Chairman of the Defence Committee for liberating me from the need to hold witnesses under scrutiny upstairs and allowing me to add to some of the points which have been made. I must declare an interest, in that I was a consultant and parliamentary adviser to the Gracewell Institute until it went out of existence.
Currently, I am a trustee and director of the Faithfull Foundation. I must add that I was pleased that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—who is to reply to the debate today—came to the launch of that foundation in the House of Lords some time ago, and made an excellent speech. I know of the machinations that he went through to make that presentation. I am not supposed to know, but I do, and I commend him for making that speech. It confirmed in my mind the Minister's commitment to the issue. I shall not declare any details of the incident now, and I have no intention of doing so elsewhere. Our secrets are safe.
My involvement in this matter goes back to Cleveland, the Butler-Sloss inquiry—in which I was involved—and my experiences since then. When I told my soulmate in my office, Christopher Kelsey, that I was going to try to contribute to the debate today, he asked whether I had prepared anything. I replied that I had not, but he said that that was all right as I knew all about the issue. I said "No, Chris. No one knows all about it. We are still scratching the surface." We have barely embarked on a journey that we really must complete because, to date, we are making a dog's breakfast of it.
Perhaps the starting point is that everybody—regardless of who we are or what station we occupy in life—seeks approval and recognition. In order to gain that approval and recognition, we respond inevitably to example. It does not matter whether that example is good or bad, because when we start to receive it we are incapable of judging whether it is good or bad. If we receive that example from the people who are caring for us and feeding and clothing us, we naturally assume it to be proper. No matter what a person shows us to do or how he shows us to do it, we expect it to be the right manner in which to behave. If we are later

317
subject to the shock of realising that we are badly in error, we have huge feelings of guilt, remorse, confusion and regret which put us at a disadvantage.
A person is put into care usually because he or she is in some kind of danger, be it from mental or emotional cruelty or from physical or sexual abuse, although someone can be put into care if there is no one else to care for him or her. Generally, children are put in a form of what we hope is positive custody, but they are placed with other youngsters who have had similar unfortunate experiences. In doing that, we add to the series of unfortunate experiences that have been visited on them.
We make that error not only at that stage, I have to say. We make the same error with the people whom we find guilty of abuse, because we usually put them into some kind of protective custody in a penal institute. They are banged up with people who have been guilty of similar transgressions, and once again there is an almost organic cycle of amplification and multiplication.
We must try to break that cycle, and break the relentless repetition of damage that we are allowing to be visited on future generations. I was greatly taken with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who called for a change in ministerial remit, as that was a point that I wanted to raise.
In my work with the obscene publications department of Scotland Yard, one thing seemed to me to be profligately wasteful. We would place a fairly experienced police constable—male or female—in the department, and would allow him or her to be trained in somewhat distressing circumstances. Some of the stuff that the department must examine, scrutinise and evaluate is so bloody foul that the effort to stay sane while observing it stretches the mind. Just when the constable was becoming mature and seasoned in that work, he or she would be moved to traffic because otherwise that person's career prospects could be damaged. That is fine from the point of view of career development, but it is not much bloody good in terms of taking care of children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, but I would ask him to moderate his language somewhat.
Mr. Cook: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for using the term "bloody", if that was the word that caused offence. Was there any other?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Not yet.
Mr. Cook: I had no intention of causing offence, I promise you, and I promise the House. I apologise for using the term "bloody"—but I still feel as strongly as that, or even more strongly.
It does not make much sense to train people, to give them that degree of expertise and then to remove them from the position of responsibility. The same applies to Ministries. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to the plethora of departments that have to cope with the problems that have been described. Health, education and social services are all involved, as are Home Office responsibilities such as probation and the police.
Somehow the poor individuals fall down the cracks on the keyboard. We are trying to play a minor tune on a keyboard capable of performing only in a major key. My
318
plea, extending those that have already been recorded, is that we should create another kind of agency. I have pleaded for some time for such an agency, to concentrate on family matters. What would we call it? Perhaps a support availability agency.
What we need is a police force that is not police, social services that are not social services and probation services that are not probation. Such an agency would need the responsibility and authority to stretch further than other bodies and, as a single agency, to care for the particular needs of every individual who required such attention.
Every family should be able to call on such services as and how it sees fit. The courts, too, should be able to identify people whom they consider to be in need of such attention. I could talk at great length on the subject, but I know that other hon. Members want their turn. I hope that my comments have been of help to the House.
11.51 am
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I begin by declaring an interest as a practising barrister, and the few remarks that I shall make will relate purely to that sphere. I have spent about 30 years in court in one form or another, and in that time I have seen thousands upon thousands of children and young persons who have ended up before a court simply because they have been neglected.
None of us chooses his or her parents, but for most of us life is quite happy; our parents care for us, guide us and see that we are educated, housed and eventually launched upon the sea of life. But for some, that is not to be.
For some the path is care, or even custody. That sometimes happens because of the death of parents, leaving their children alone in a society in which there is no one to care for them. Over the years, much good work has been done by various adoption societies, children's homes, and so on—but that can never replace a parent. All of us who have children know that.
For instance, if my sons want advice they can ring me up today, wherever they may be. They may not get especially good advice from their father, but at least they have someone to whom to turn. When, for whatever reason, a child has been in care, to whom can that child turn? Can he or she go back to the matron or whoever else ran the home and say, "Please, what do I do?"? The answer is inevitably no, because the throughput is so great, as is the pressure on space and time, and the lack of resources.
Other children end up in care because they have broken the law. We have all seen youngsters such as the young tearaway who is put into care, unless he ends up in one of the more contained establishments run—although "run" may be too kind a word to use—by Her Majesty's Prison Service. In such units there is little education, little support and little, if any, after-care.
The various agencies such as the probation service and social services have done a superb job over the years. But what happens to such children now? They are contained and restrained. And now the Government want to take the social service element out of probation training. How stupid can they get? The idea is negative and stupid and will actually he costly.

319
When children in care are 16, we say to them, "Where now?" Some authorities give them £1,000, and some the proverbial sandwich and a fiver. Then they are supposed to find their way in the world. It is not their fault that they do not have parents or that they grew up in a broken home in a destroyed society. They did not ask for that. Tell me of one child who wants a life of misery. There would not be many volunteers.
None the less, there those children are at the age of 16. What do we do with them? And now we are to tell them that they cannot have as much housing benefit or support as before. Yet those are the very children who need support and benefit. Ten years ago in America, in Boston and other places, there was the Massachusetts experiment in which, with the aid of the probation service and social services, children who came out of the penal system were fed back into society.
They lived in almost sheltered accommodation at first, but they could work their way up the ladder and get a better flat, and were helped and advised about getting jobs. They were gently cared for and led back into society. Why can we not do that? I do not say that every child who leaves a children's home this year will fall into the problems of criminality, but it was found that there was not much offending among the children in the Massachusetts experiment.
When is a child most vulnerable and most likely to be caught up in the web of offending and reoffending? We know that the peak age of offending is 14, and at 16 one is not far away from that. Yet a young girl who leaves a care home is put into a bedsit. She may have her £1,000, but to whom is she to turn? Along will come some nice kindly person, as she thinks, and before she knows where she is, she will be in the wrong company.
How is such a child to judge the quality of the company that she keeps? She has no experience against which to balance it. Unfortunately, we do not have many wise people in government at present—except, of course, the Under-Secretary of State for Health who is here today, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—but if the Government were wise in such matters, they would consider the overall cost.
How much does it cost to put a 16-year-old into a secure environment, by which I mean somewhere warm, dry and affordable, where there is support and someone to whom to turn? Perhaps £100 a week. Contrast that with the £400 a week that it costs to put someone into a penal establishment. So, to save £100 a week, we risk spending £400 a week. That is the mathematics of the madhouse, but the Government do not take that fact on board.
We have a Home Secretary who seems to think that if we march people up the hill and down again often enough, we might achieve something, although all that he will find out will be what the rest of us found out 10 or 15 years ago—that the faster we march them up the hill, the more quickly they think of ways of getting away, the more crimes they learn and the worse they turn out at the end of the day.
Why can we not get away from all that and simply build and rebuild? It would not cost a fortune. I heard what was said about the Children Act 1989, and I know from professional experience that there are many holes in the legislation. However, I do not propose to trespass down that road now, because I am watching the time with great care, and watching my Whip, to whom I have to be nice, with even greater care.
320
Let me finish as simply as I began. When a child is vulnerable, we as a society should care for that child. And which children in our society are more vulnerable than those in care? Therefore, when they reach the age at which they must leave the environment that has looked after them hitherto, that is the important time when they need support. We do not give it. We do not try. We abandon them and, years later, say, "Gosh, how did that all start?" We have only ourselves to blame. To a Conservative Government this must come as manna from heaven and music to their ears, but sometimes there is benefit in investing. That is their motto. I merely ask that the Government should try investing in our kids; they deserve it.
11.59 am
Mr. Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) deserves the thanks of the whole House for bringing this important subject to public attention. It is also important to pay credit to all the organisations that have mounted such a spirited campaign in defence of care leavers and their problems. I am thinking of organisations such as Save the Children Fund, Barnardo's, Community Care magazine, Centrepoint and many others.
Today's debate reflects the growing concern about a neglected group of some 10,000 young people a year who leave local authority care. We know where those young people came from and why they went into care but until recently we knew little about what happens to them once they leave it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made the important point that there is a long way to go before we correct that information deficit, but, thankfully, a spate of recent reports has begun to unearth what has all too often been a hidden problem.
The picture that those reports paint of life after care for young people is bleak. We have heard about unemployment and homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made the important point about the all too frequent appearances of young care leavers before the courts and how they eventually enter the prison system. However, the organisations that produced the reports are to be commended for involving young care leavers in their preparation and production. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, care and after-care services will only improve if we listen to the voices of those who have experienced them.
The stories that young care leavers have told in the various reports to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West referred will, I hope, help to shape a better future for the next generation of care leavers. It is easy to forget that all young people who leave care have exactly the same aspirations as any other young person. They want to raise families, to have homes, to prosper and enjoy the best that life has to offer. It is common ground that the aim of all policy, whether local or national, is to ensure that young care leavers make the transition from care to independence as quickly and easily as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West made the important point that there are good examples of local, and national, organisations working together to ensure that that transition is made, but such experiences are all too limited.

321
The reality is that, too often, young people leaving care find the path to independence blocked. As a consequence, young care leavers find the opportunities that are available to others denied to them. They face the worst of all possible worlds: an early ejection from a supported environment into an often prejudiced society with no stable family support system to fall back on when the going gets tough. Invariably, the going does get tough. They find themselves competing for jobs in a labour market where 600,000 young people are already out of work but face the additional handicap of public prejudice against care leavers and, often, lower educational attainment. The result, not surprisingly, is that a high proportion of young care leavers become unemployed.
Life without work, and on the breadline, is the biggest single obstacle to the search of young care leavers for meaningful independence. Unemployment and poverty also inhibit their search for appropriate housing. The Centrepoint study that was mentioned earlier in the debate found that more than half the young care leavers who were surveyed had been homeless, and nearly all had slept rough.
Without a job or an income, finding a rented flat becomes virtually impossible. To compound the problem, Social Security Ministers say that social fund payments cannot be used to pay rent deposits. That situation will be made worse by the Government's plan to have housing benefit paid in arrears.
The social security system is also set to militate against the development of what I think everyone is agreed is an excellent halfway house between care and independence—ssupported lodging schemes. They provide support services that are unavailable in any bed-and-breakfast accommodation but since housing benefit is to be capped against assumed shared costs, supported lodging schemes will be priced out of the reach of young care leavers. Already, organisations involved with running such schemes are warning that the latest planned changes to housing benefit policy risk throwing more vulnerable young people on to the streets. At best, the proposal to limit housing benefit for young people under the age of 25 will force them out of half-decent accommodation into inadequate, unregulated and potentially dangerous multi-occupation dwellings.
Already, 16 and 17-year-olds face exclusion from the benefit system with access to income support and housing benefit virtually unobtainable except in cases of exceptional or severe hardship. There is even evidence that social fund officers have refused community care grants to care leavers on the basis that social services have a power to make leaving care grants under the provisions of the Children Act 1989. They have that power, but, with the best will in the world, it is unrealistic to expect social services departments to pick up the tab for the Government's refusal to allow young people access to benefits that are available to everyone else. That is not their role and nor do they have the resources to be able to do it.
The Minister will have read the recent report from the Association of Directors of Social Services, which warns that already more than three in four social services departments are projecting substantial overspends on their 1995-96 child care budgets due to the pressure of rising
322
demand. Indeed, the ADSS president Tad Kubisa explicitly warned last month that services for young care leavers could face cuts as a result. As with other matters, there seems to be total confusion between the objectives of different Government Departments.
The Minister will no doubt say that he wants care leavers to be able to live independently outside the care environment—and rightly so—but the Department of Social Security is engaged in an exercise of restricting choice and limiting independence. Unfortunately, the piggies in the middle are the care leavers, who find themselves bereft of support, and social services departments, which find themselves under more pressure to compensate for failures in national policy.
There is a need for national policy to reflect the best examples of local policy, where education, housing and social services co-operate together to ease young people's transition from care. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pinpointed the problems and failures of the Children Act 1989 in ensuring proper co-ordination. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
Similarly, there is a need to build on best practice. The document produced by the First Key national standards working group is a welcome step in the right direction. National standards would considerably strengthen the existing guidance to the Children Act 1989 by defining the sort of after-care services that local authorities should work towards. However, if new duties are to be imposed on local authorities, it is clearly important that appropriate resources are identified to ensure that change happens. In that regard, work by the social services inspectorate is to be welcomed, especially if it helps to identify the cost of a comprehensive leaving care policy.
Crucially, there should be improved monitoring of care leavers. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West mentioned the almost unspeakable murders committed by Fred and Rosemary West. They are a tragic reminder of the failings of the current system and the dangers faced by lonely and vulnerable young people. I have listened carefully to the organisations which were most closely involved in the West case about the lessons that they think can be learned from it. The Bridge child care consultancy, which was appointed by the Gloucestershire social services committee—I understand, with the Department of Health's recommendation—has called for national action in relation to children who run away from care or their families or who place themselves at risk. The ADSS is calling for a national register of young runaways, and the British Association of Social Workers is calling for a register of convicted abusers. I should be grateful to know the Minister's views on those proposals.
Will the Minister also tell us how the monitoring of young care leavers in general could be improved? Frankly, there are some problems with mandatory monitoring, but I think that it is possible to consider a number of important improvements that could be made.
First, we could ask local authorities to collect factual information when young people leave care, which would provide some basic data on their accommodation, educational attainment, employment and training prospects. It is important to monitor the first moves that young care leavers make when they leave their care placements. We could ask the social services inspectorate to monitor more of the long-term outcomes for care

323
leavers, perhaps by studying a selected sample of experiences from individual local authorities. Will the Minister give us his views on those proposals?
The particular difficulties that young care leavers face call for a twin-track approach from the Government. One track would involve the pursuit of policies to improve young people's general opportunities and prospects. One policy would involve a jobs and skills training programme that would use the talents of the young and, incidentally, help to cut the benefits bill. Another policy would entail a housing investment programme that would use the locked-up capital receipts from council house sales to create badly needed and innovative social housing schemes. A rejuvenated economy would provide resources for essential social services.
The other track of the programme would involve more specific action to ease young people's transition from care to independence. It would necessitate co-operation rather than conflict between Government Departments; a resolution of the benefit anomalies that currently frustrate independent living; earlier and better preparation for leaving care; new standards of after-care services; improved monitoring of young people's progress when they leave care; and the involvement of young care leavers in the process of improving support in future.
Improved support is necessary and is long overdue. Young care leavers have to contend with a range of difficulties. Such young people lack the bedrock of a stable family background. In care, they often have to contend with a traumatised personal history and, not surprisingly, they often feel marginalised from society as a consequence. After leaving care, they all too often become unemployed and homeless. As we have heard this morning, many of those young people tragically turn to crime. Having rightly assumed responsibility for their care, society cannot simply wash its hands of them immediately they leave the protected environment of care: the costs, both to care leavers and to society, are too great for that.
There have been some excellent contributions to this debate and they have pinpointed some problems in the aftercare services. More positively, the contributions have clearly suggested how the problems can be resolved. I hope that the Minister will, in turn, respond positively to those suggestions.
12.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): This is the moment when I have to try to expose my flinty exterior for what it is. I welcome the introduction to the debate by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I also welcome the contributions by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and the brief but important contribution by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
I have heard much during the debate that I welcome. The tone of it was right. We are here to seek to care for people who need our care in a particular and continuing way. If I have one quarrel with the subject of the debate chosen by the hon. Member for Newport, West it is over a matter for which he cannot be blamed: the fact that we talk about "leaving care." That is the wrong terminology. We should not talk about young people leaving care; we should talk about young people moving, over a period,
324
from care to independence. The concept of leaving contains the notion of a cut-off, which the hon. Gentleman and I reject—I think that we all rejected it today. Our message is that there should not be a cut-off point, certainly not at the age of 16.
When he and I talk to young people who have left care recently, and who often contribute to our debates and conferences, we do well to listen to their message. They ask, "Who was getting to know me while I was in care? Who was preparing me for the moment when I would leave or move out of care? Who kept in touch with me once I had made that move?" That is the theme of today's debate and it is certainly the theme of my response to it.
We have to use the phrase "leaving care" as a convenient shorthand and I shall prove as guilty of doing so as anyone else, but it is only shorthand. The phrase is familiar to all those involved with the provision of services and opportunities for young people who are looked after by local authorities, many of whom, as we have heard, will have come from disadvantaged backgrounds—the hon. Member for Stockton, North listed some of the disadvantages. The shorthand phrase does not and cannot describe the wide variety of circumstances in which young people are looked after, nor the individual needs that they present as they move from care.
A number of hon. Members have acknowledged the Children Act, which I welcome. That Act probably gave the greatest ever impetus to the provision of leaving care services. We can argue whether the Act is perfect, whether it needs amendment or whether it could be better implemented, but it give local authorities a clear responsibility—particularly under section 24—to provide a range of services and assistance. It also gives local authorities the discretion to provide additional help for young people where appropriate.
Under that Act, the local authorities have the new statutory responsibility to prepare the young people they are looking after for the time when they leave care. They have the power to provide after-care support in certain defined circumstances until the young people reach the age of 21. They also have the power to provide financial assistance in appropriate circumstances.
The Act requires local authorities to advise, assist and befriend young people with a view to promoting their welfare when they cease to be looked after in the legal term. Local authorities also have the power to provide financial assistance connected with a young person's further education, employment and training—that assistance can extend beyond the age of 21 to enable the young person to complete a course. Comprehensive guidance for local authorities and voluntary organisations on all those matters was issued to accompany the legislation.
Section 24 is the key to the Act. The hon. Gentleman referred to the amendments that he would like to see implemented. I sought to intervene towards the end of his speech and I should be grateful if he would give some thought, not necessarily now, to the ways in which he would like the Act to be improved. I shall be happy to listen to his suggestions. The message that I heard today was that hon. Members want the Act to be better implemented, not necessarily changed. However, we can all consider that together.
I believe that the duty placed on local authorities to prepare children for the day that they leave care is of fundamental importance. Whenever I am asked to speak

325
on the subject of so-called "leaving care", I make a great effort to emphasise the fact that the arrangements for leaving care are not matters that can be left until a few weeks before the young person leaves care.
The day that a young person arrives in care should ideally be the day when preparation for leaving care begins. In one sense, the best preparation is to ensure that the young person receives the highest quality of care and education while being looked after. Special attention may need to be paid to equipping him or her with the skills required for living on their own. That should be integral, not a stand-alone element in the programme of help. I want a seamless range of services—that has been mentioned—to be available for each young person. Leaving care arrangements must be evolutionary and must be put in place, quite often, over some years, but that can be achieved only if the young person receives good quality care. That is why we have taken several initiatives to make residential care a more positive experience for them.
Mr. Flynn: The main recommendations that we would make are to strengthen duties of local authorities in the Children Act 1989, to make them mandatory on local authorities, to ring-fence those funds for the financial provisions for care leavers and to raise them to an adequate level. I want measures of choice to prevent young people leaving care too young. They will have a great deal of say in that. Most important of all, there should be measures to iron out those disparities that exist between local authorities or care services. We want national co-ordination, to ensure that the level of care provided does not depend on the address of the person who applies for it.
Mr. Bowis: As I suspected, much of that is to do with implementation rather than changes in the law. I acknowledge that that is what the hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying in much of his speech.
The requirement in section 24(1) of the 1989 Act is mandatory, not voluntary. That section says:
"it shall be the duty of the authority to advise, assist and befriend him"—
the child being looked after by a local authority—
"with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to be looked after by them."
That requirement is certainly mandatory.
I believe that the hon. Member for Newport, West is asking for other things to be made mandatory, such as monitoring. As the hon. Member for Darlington said, that might not be as simple as he suggests. Nevertheless, I will listen if the hon. Member for Newport, West suggests possible improvements. However, if—although I should be surprised if they are—local authorities are telling me that they will do what they are required to do in law only if we make those things mandatory or if we require them to do what is best practice, I shall listen to them. Similarly, if local authorities want us to top-slice the money that otherwise would be given to them to be used at their discretion—to ring-fence a budget for those aspects—we shall listen, but they have not so far asked us to do that.
Mr. Flynn: It would be impossible to iron out those difficulties in the final eight minutes. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation consisting of myself, some
326
other hon. Members, representatives of some of the organisations and some care leavers, so that we may explain and discuss the fine details of what we propose?
Mr. Bowis: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and people involved in that sector. I meet them and have met them. I have attended conferences and seminars with them and sat down and chatted to them. I am happy to take that a stage further, if the hon. Gentleman wants to do so.
Some interesting and justified arguments were made about the reputation of residential child care. It is important that we do not allow its name to be muddied by highlighting examples of things going wrong. Too often, perhaps, it has been regarded as an option of last resort, and if people regard it in that way it can become self-fulfilling. I am keen that we improve the standing, status and quality of residential child care. That is why our residential child care support force has travelled throughout the country, under the leadership of Adrianne Jones. It has worked with about 76 agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors to try to improve the quality of residential child care.
There is evidence from that exercise that authorities are making solid progress in implementing many of the good practice recommendations from the Warner and other reports. In relation to foster care and residential care, we have promoted our looking after children project, which is being implemented in 39 local authorities and has attracted widespread, indeed international, interest. That provides a complete system of planning and decision making, reviewing and monitoring the care of children away from home with the aim of improving day-to-day standards and thereby offering a better chance to a child to fulfil his or her potential in life.
In spite of those improvements, it is true that substitute care can never entirely replace the benefits of a child being brought up in his or her own family. Many of the children in care enter care at a very early age and already have a disturbed and disadvantaged history. Many will experience multiple placements, including perhaps a mixture of foster and residential care. Some, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, may have suffered emotional, physical or sexual abuse or neglect, or a mixture of those.
Such young people have different backgrounds and have few of the opportunities that may be afforded to young people brought up in what may be termed a "normal" family environment in which, even after children leave home, they continue to look to their family for support, help and advice. That is why I urge local authorities—and I shall go on doing so—to ensure that there is a continuity of relationship between the young person and key individuals to provide that essential continuum in managing the transition between being in care and adulthood.
Above all, those young people need adults to stand by them; to be committed in the way that we expect parents to champion their own children. "Key workers", social workers or volunteers may play that role, which we consider to be so important for individual young people.
When I visit local authorities and speak to staff, I ask them to consider what they would expect for their own children. It is a simple, effective question, and I have witnessed some immensely positive outcomes from it. Not

327
so long ago, I visited a London borough that had a policy of positively encouraging young people to return to their children's home for advice and support or to stay for a short time, remembering birthdays and so on. It is all part of that continuum of care, which is a very important message that we bring.
Listening to young people is crucial. The conferences in Bolton and London that the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned, which attracted 1,000 people from social services and elsewhere, were especially valuable, because, not only were we launching the training pack and the Leeds research, but they showed how important it is to listen to young people and hear their perspective.
Young people contributed to those conferences, and we intend to go on listening to them, not least by including them, as we are doing, in some other social services inspectorate work. They form part of the inspection teams that we send out, and that is part of the monitoring, which I hope is acknowledged and recognised by hon. Members. I know that First Key and other organisations such as the Who Cares Trust and the Save the Children Fund place great store by direct consultation with young people. I know, from meeting First Key, of young people who are members of consultancy teams brought in by local authorities to help them plan their services.
In all those aspects, we need to, and we shall, liaise closely with local authorities and other statutory agencies to effect the changes that are seen to be necessary. Many authorities have developed imaginative, effective schemes for supporting care leavers. That is why I have confidence that we can do better nationally.
However, we need to recognise that provision varies throughout the country. We need to reduce that variation by monitoring and development, and our social services inspectorate is currently preparing a set of standards, which has been asked for, for local policy and good practice, as a basis for its inspection of local authority leaving care services next year. That will be published as part of the report of the inspection and will provide a benchmark against which all local authorities will be able to measure their existing policy and practice.
In addition, we issue guidance for our children's services plans. That will give us another opportunity to enable local authorities to develop their services in that sector, and I take the point that, just as Government Departments must talk together, so local authority departments must talk together and work with education and other agencies. Education should be part of young people's experience in care. There are many other points that one could make. We have had an interesting range of contributions.
I welcome the debate and I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating it. We are agreed that we need to do more to support young people as they move from care to independence. We need to support them not as an intrusive and unnecessary exercise, but in the way they tell us they want. If we listen, we find they want what we as parents would want for our own children. If we keep asking whether the provision is good enough for our own children, we will begin to find the right answer for children leaving care or, as I prefer to put it, moving from care to independence. That will be good for society as a whole.

Planning (Public Participation)
12.30 pm
Sir Irvine Patnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising a matter that has interested and concerned me for many years—public participation in planning.
Nearly 500,000 planning applications were lodged in England in 1993-94. Of those, only 99 were "called in" for decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment, or 0.02 per cent. of all planning applications submitted in England in that year. In the 1995 annual report from the Department of the Environment, entitled "This Common Inheritance", I was pleased to note that the United Kingdom's green belt has been increased in size.
The protection of the green belt is essential, particularly in densely populated areas. Sheffield used to be known as a dirty picture in a beautiful green frame, but that is no longer the case. Since the Clean Air Act 1956, the vision that people had of Sheffield belching out filthy black smoke is no longer accurate. Without the smoke, Sheffield still produces more steel each year.
Planning policy guidance 12 requires planning authorities to test all their policies against the statements in "This Common Inheritance". The Government confirmed that permission can be refused or restricted on grounds of demonstrable harm to the policy, even when the particular case does not cause such harm. "This Common Inheritance" adds that sustainable development means not sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today.
In my constituency, trees have been chopped down that should not have been; sites have been developed that should not have been; and token consultation has taken place and then been ignored, which it should not have been.
Mature trees have been chopped down at Willow Croft in Fulwood. Sheffield city council acted only after the trees had been felled, and following a huge public protest. Thankfully, those trees were not chopped down in vain. The council has now decided to place tree preservation orders on sites it sells off, and has appointed members of the public as watchdogs to monitor such matters.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) was most helpful in responding to my questions at that time, and that helped to bring about the change in council policy. However, we were locking the door after the horse had already bolted, because the powers to prevent the loss of the trees already existed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is only too aware of the problems with three sites in my constituency, because of the barrage of letters from and lobbying by residents and myself. The planning actions on those sites are the reason for the debate.
The secure unit at Limb lane, Dore, in Sheffield is a prime example. Sheffield city council owned the land and proposed to develop the site, funded by the Department of Health. The council acted as prosecution and defence, judge and jury, as it granted itself planning permission. However, as the site was in the green belt, the case had to be referred to the Department of the Environment. As the development did not conflict with national policy, the planning permission was not called in, even though it was

329
advertised as a departure and accepted as such by my hon. Friend. He acts in a quasi-judicial role, and cannot be involved in lobbying on such planning matters. His ear was hardly burnt, let alone bent.
There was a six-month consultation period on the Limb lane site. However, one questions what notice the council took of the objections. The original publicity resulted in 334 letters objecting to the development. A petition objecting to the building of the unit contained more than 1,600 signatures, and a further petition contained nearly 1,800 signatures—all objecting on the grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an exception to green belt policy being made.
I fully accept that planning permissions are generally called in only if they involve issues of greater than local significance, or give rise to substantial national or regional controversy. Despite all the objections, the council's planning committee granted itself planning permission.
The implication is that councils can nibble away at the green belt, while paying lip service to public consultation. That may result in large chunks of the green belt, which the Government are preserving, being eroded by stealth.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that, yesterday, a significant planning application was granted by the Cotswold district council for a supermarket on the highest point of the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty. Gloucestershire county council has an interest in that application, because it is likely to receive £1 million from the sale of a residential care home.
The county council sent me an extraordinary letter yesterday. It has objected to every application for planning permission on that road on highway grounds, and I had asked why it was not going to object to this application for the same reasons. I shall paraphrase the council's letter. It said that it was aware that it had objected on previous occasions on highway grounds, but that it could find no written evidence to that effect. In other words, it has lost the records. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that application, as the circumstances seem to be similar to the example he has raised?
Sir Irvine Patnick: The circumstances are similar, and prove that the problem is not confined to Sheffield but is happening throughout the country, as I have always believed.
I shall highlight yet another example in Hallam. A piece of land on the former bus terminus site is bordered by Terminus road, Abbeydale road, Pingle road and Hartington avenue in Millhouses, Sheffield. Despite many letters expressing overwhelming opposition, planning permission has been granted by the city council. Many shops visible from Abbeydale road south for over 50 years will be hidden by the development on that site.
The application to develop land at Abbeydale Grange school playing field also met overwhelming opposition, and yet was granted planning permission by the city council, which owns the land. Two public meetings were attended by a total of 300 residents. A motion was passed stating:
"we deplore the intensification of use of this school sports fields, and demand that a public inquiry be held before planning permission is granted."
330
I shall spell out the problem: the council owns the land; the council applied for planning permission; the council granted planning permission; and the council considered and ignored the objection. According to a brochure entitled "Planning—Charter Standards", should one have any complaints about the way the council handled an application, one can complain—no prizes for guessing to whom—to the council.
In August, Sheffield city council proposed, under the Sheffield unitary development plan, which will be subject to public inquiry under an independent inspector, that many parts of Hallam constituency be removed from the green belt. The city council has received 10 petitions, representing just under 4,000 signatures, objecting to the 47 sites identified by the council, including an objection by the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside.
Val Malthouse, whose name will be indelibly engraved on the Minister's heart as a result of the Limb lane discussions, advised me by fax only yesterday:
"one of the local farmers only found out about the possible sale of their farmland through Radio Sheffield and subsequent reports in the Sheffield Star. No intimation of this was received from the Council.".
She continued:
"in our dealings with the planning department we have not found them helpful, in fact when we asked for a supply of objection forms"—
1,000 forms to object to the UDP—
"we were told we couldn't possibly have them under any circumstances, and that only two forms were available. In the local libraries where they were supposed to be available there were in fact none. Everything seemed to be rubber stamped and objectors not taken any notice of. We intend to complain of our treatment in the new year."
There are no prizes for working out whom she will have to complain to—the council.
I can vouch for that condemnation of the planning system, as, when I originally wanted to object to the UDP, the forms were not yet printed, and when they were, obtaining one demanded skill, resolution and patience—as a former Whip, I would add, cunning. It was worse than a treasure hunt, without the clues.
All three of those examples do not fit the NIMBY—not in my back yard—criteria. People are concerned that their views are being dismissed out of hand, with no way of bringing them to anyone's attention. Accordingly, people say that it is the fault of the Member of Parliament, the Government—or, indeed, the Minister, who just does not care. That is not true, but it is a typical expression that people use. The planning system does not appear to have satisfied them that their views have been heard, considered and acted upon.
My understanding is that Sheffield city council has interpreted PPG2 incorrectly and that the cavalry—in the shape of the Government—may be on the horizon. The planning committee in Sheffield met only yesterday to recommend amendments to the further proposed changes to the UDP that will be presented in evidence to the unitary development plan public inquiry, and there may be a change in the council's position.
I wonder whether the fact that the inquiry is to take place in public and not behind the closed door of a planning committee meeting influenced the council's decision. How much was it affected by the fact that the Government Office in Yorkshire and Humberside fired a warning salvo? My hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on that.

331
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) disproved the possibility that the problems that I have outlined do not arise in shire counties where the council owns the land and the county council has planning powers.
Let me make it abundantly clear that I am not advocating the return of the metropolitan counties or the GLC, but there should be a way to ensure that a city council owning the land and applying to itself for planning permission seeks public consultation and takes notice of it.
Although the majority of planning applications are not opposed, an independent system of scrutiny is required. It could be based on the public inquiry system without the cost, or by written submission to an independent inspector appointed to examine the proposals. That would enable the objectors' case to be examined by an external source.
I have given some examples of where a local authority owns a site and plans to develop it and grants itself planning permission, albeit by a planning committee with delegated powers. Despite overwhelming opposition to proposals, and because of the lack of skills, facilities and funds, many objectors feel that their views are totally and utterly ignored.
Although the Minister has been most helpful with the many planning matters that I have raised with him, I consider that the objectors' case requires raising at the highest possible level, which is why I raise it here.
Not all councils act in such a cavalier manner—nor does Sheffield, on every occasion—but the anguish they cause by holding public meetings and then apparently ignoring the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents cannot be right, and it should not continue: a method of dealing with these matters must be evolved.
In one sentence, the debate seeks to ensure that objectors such as those to Limb lane, Terminus road and Abbeydale Grange have a right to be heard, during and after consultation, and have their views judged by an external examiner. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for assistance to ensure that is done soon.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), in his usual style, has emphatically raised matters that have concerned us both since our days in local government. He is correct to say that far and away the majority of local authorities are fair, clear and open, and, as he said, so is Sheffield in most cases. However, we are aware of the possible difficulties of which some local authorities may be justifiably accused along the lines that my hon. Friend has described. I shall consider the points that he has raised, and touch on some of the safeguards that are already in place.
My hon. Friend is aware that the planning system must provide a means of ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. A new development has to be provided for and should be accommodated sensibly. At the same time, we have to take proper regard of the need to conserve our natural and built environment.
The town and country planning legislation provides a comprehensive framework for the planning system so that the future use and development of land can be debated at
332
an appropriate level—that is locally, regionally and nationally. There are opportunities for public debate and involvement in planning decision at all levels.
In contrast to other countries not too far away, Britain has a strong tradition of public participation in planning matters. That is extremely important and very welcome. It is important that people should have the opportunity to contribute to decisions that will influence the shape and appearance of their environment for many years to come. We have built on that tradition, and we seek to foster and encourage public participation in many different ways.
Many planning decisions require the consideration of opposing views about the best use of land. The planning system allows those differing views to be considered within a clear and structured framework. However, when there are contrasting opinions, one side of the argument may not agree with the ultimate decision.
In the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, we introduced the plan-led system of planning. Since September 1991, decisions on planning applications—the great majority of which are taken by local planning authorities—must accord with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The statutory procedures governing development plans make clear provision for the public to be involved in the plan preparation process. That is done through the pre-deposit consultation and the public local inquiry mechanism, which represents an important opportunity for my hon. Friend and many of his constituents. The local planning authority can take into account the differing views that have been expressed before adopting their plan proposals and, because of the significance of the development plan for the future use of land, it is important that all those with an interest in the planned proposals should participate actively in the formulation of local authority's plan for the area.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is aware that there are a number of major supermarket applications in my constituency. One was granted yesterday, and others are in the pipeline. The large residential supermarket companies are deliberately targeting the smaller market towns in my constituency and putting in applications prior to the local plan hearing by the planning inspectorate. Can my hon. Friend comment on the possibility of refusing those applications on the grounds of prematurity?
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Such a decision is normally delayed on the grounds of it being too early in relation to the plan. That happens quite often, unless there are exceptional circumstances. It might be appropriate for an application to go ahead, particularly if it affects the likely outcome of the plan. In some circumstances development should not be delayed, but I am not necessarily applying that approach to the individual case that my hon. Friend has presented. He will recognise, of course, that I am not in a position to discuss that case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam mentioned that Sheffield city council proposed further changes to the unitary development plan, seeking to identify 47 "major developed sites" in the green belt. Annex C of my Department's planning policy guidance note 2—that is, PPG2—advises that, subject to certain criteria, redevelopment or limited infilling of sites so identified in

333
an adopted development plan is not inappropriate development. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised objections to the identification in the plan of these sites, 11 of which—surprise, surprise—are in his constituency.
As my hon. Friend may know—indeed, he referred to this—the Government offices for the regions scrutinise closely all development plan policies and proposals, to ensure that they accord with the published national planning policy that is set out in PPGs and circulars. As my hon. Friend has said, the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside has formally objected to Sheffield's proposals to identify 47 "major developed sites" in the green belt, on the ground that they conflict with national green belt policy. My hon. Friend's interpretation is being followed as well.
It is for the city council, as the plan-preparing authority, to consider the objections that it receives in respect of its plan proposals. In the light of responses received to public consultation, including the formal objections of the Government office, the city council's planning and economic development programme committee yesterday resolved to withdraw all 47 sites, subject, as my hon. Friend said, to ratification by the full council this afternoon.
I am sure that the council will ratify the decision, especially given the pressure of my hon. Friend. It is obviously an important issue, which I am sure the council will consider carefully before taking steps towards adopting its plan.
The Government firmly believe that those likely to he affected by a proposed development should have every opportunity to express their views before decisions are taken on planning applications generally. Where these raise issues relevant to planning, the local planning authority has a duty to take them into account when determining the planning application.
In 1992, we introduced arrangements for compulsory publicity for all planning applications. As a minimum, councils now have to notify neighbours directly, or place a notice on or near a site. For major applications—including, for example, the erection of 10 or more dwellings—a local newspaper advertisement is additionally required, to canvass views more widely on the likely impact. All notices and advertisements should give a date by which comments should be submitted to the council.
As well as setting statutory minima, the publicity provisions are designed to allow planning authorities maximum discretion to use any additional methods of publicity which they consider necessary in the light of local circumstances. There might be a cynical sigh from those on the Benches behind me, but I hope that we can encourage authorities to use that discretion.
We are not content to set statutory provisions in place and leave it at that. We are keen that wider participation should take place, and that the public generally are able to make a positive contribution to the quality of new developments. Along these lines, the Department has issued a circular to planning authorities giving advice on best practice for publicising planning applications and involving interested parties.
As I have explained, development plans provide the keystone of our planning system. It is therefore only right that planning applications that depart from the plan should
334
be brought to the attention of local residents. We have amended planning legislation so that all departures have to be advertised, giving the public a chance to comment on them. That procedure applied to the development proposed at Limb lane, Dore, to which my hon. Friend referred. It was effectively planning permission to develop a site that was historically already developed in the green belt.
My hon. Friend referred also to other applications which were decided by Sheffield city council. He will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on detail on the way in which the council has handled particular applications. As he has expressed concern about the general procedures governing local authority development, however, it might be helpful to examine more closely how the procedures work. They were revised as recently as 1992, and are now contained in the town and country planning general regulations of 1992.
The procedures which the regulations replaced—those set out in the 1976 regulations—had been criticised on the ground that local planning authorities could not act impartially when they were plaintiff and jury in their own cause. It was suggested that, because a local authority may gain financially when disposing of land with the benefit of planning permission, planning permission might be granted, which would be refused if the applicant were not the authority. The fifth report from the Select Committee on the Environment for 1985-86 concluded that the regulations had a built-in conflict of interest without balancing safeguards, and recommended that the Department should review the existing procedures.
As my hon. Friend will understand and expect, the Department took the recommendations to heart, and published a consultation paper proposing reforms in February 1990. The proposals, revised to take account of consultation responses, were implemented through section 316 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the 1992 regulations made under that section. The general principle underlying the 1992 regulations is that local planning authorities must make planning applications in the same way as any other person, and must apply for planning permission. Except in special circumstances, they must follow the same procedures as would apply to applications made by anyone else.
County and district councils may grant themselves planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, but that ability is subject to several important safeguards. For example,the proposals must be advertised and decided in public by a committee that is not responsible for land management. The public cannot be excluded from committee meetings at which local authority development proposals are discussed—as my hon. Friend suggested, that could have had an influence on some recent decisions.
To avoid a conflict of interest, applications may not be determined by a committee or officer responsible for the management of the land concerned. Local authority development proposals or development on its land must also be notified to the Secretary of State if it is not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area, so that he can consider whether to call in the application for his own determination. It is worth stressing the importance, as the UDP is being developed or revised, that local residents, including astute local Members such as my hon. Friend, keep a close eye on proceedings, especially if they have suspicions about the local authority.

335
Unitary authorities can grant planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, or for development by others on their land, but they are subject to the same safeguards of accountability and publicity.
I have no doubt that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, local authorities are scrupulous in following the procedures to which I have referred. In a decision of the sort that we are discussing, where there are two sides, not everyone will be entirely satisfied. Local authority development proposals, like those of other persons applying for planning permission, must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Sheffield city council is no different from any other local planning authority in that respect. Nor, indeed, are its proposals any different from those submitted by other developers. They must all be judged against the same criteria. In reaching their decisions, local authorities must also take into account relevant objections by local residents.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind Sheffield city council of that if he feels that there is a need to do so. Only genuine land use planning concerns are material. In some instances, there may well be positive reasons in favour of development that may outweigh local objections. My hon. Friend will understand that, given his days in local government.
I can understand that some of my hon. Friend's constituents may be disappointed by decisions that are made on their behalf, as every planning decision has difficulties, but it is important that the 1992 regulations are followed. Coupled with the requirement to refer the departures to the Secretary of State, the regulations provide the right balance between the local planning authorities' need to carry out their statutory functions and the importance of safeguards on accountability and publicity.
It is worth reminding my hon. Friend that it is open to any third party who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision to grant planning permission to apply for a judicial review. Although that is a frightening course, my hon. Friend is very experienced and could guide them. In addition, the local government ombudsman can be called on to investigate if they consider that an injustice has been caused to them as a result of maladministration.
This has been an opportunity to raise concerns that a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have on planning matters. It is also an opportunity to remind local authorities that they cannot and should not ride roughshod. I believe that, in the main, they do not.

Agriculture (Wales)
1 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome the opportunity to debate agriculture in Wales. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for attending, because he has just finished responding to the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. I gave him an idea of the issues that I intended to raise in the debate, and I hope that he will be able to respond positively to a number of my suggestions.
One of the important issues is the difficulty that many young people experience in entering the industry. The Minister is aware that agriculture makes a vital contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of rural Wales: indeed, it is the backbone of the rural economy. There is considerable concern about the difficulties faced by young people in entering the industry, bearing in mind that the average age of farmers in the United Kingdom is about 51, and there has been an upward trend in recent years.
Although the matter has been discussed for generations, very little has been done to address the problem. As far as I am aware, the Government have not suggested any solutions. As a member of the Agriculture Select Committee, which investigated the tradeability of milk quotas, I was struck by how little progress had been made in assisting young people to enter the milk sector. Some of the farming unions proposed a siphon system, whereby quota is sold on the open market. That proposal is currently being considered, among others. I must criticise the Government, because although they said they were prepared to consider initiatives made by the industry, they have not been able to give any idea which initiatives might be acceptable.
Another way to assist young people to enter the industry would be to introduce low or interest-free loans. The capital cost of entering the industry is a problem, and subsidised loans would be a way of cushioning the impact of crippling loans in the early years. Historically, the Government have refused to accept that proposal, preferring to provide capital grants to the industry as a way of investment. In recent years, the value of capital grants has reduced dramatically. I want to know whether the Government are more receptive these days to the idea of subsidised loans. Young people need some idea which initiatives the Government would be prepared to consider.
Another area of immediate concern to the farming industry, as the Minister heard in the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee this morning, is the hill livestock compensatory allowance payment. Two years ago, the Agriculture Select Committee held an inquiry into the cash cuts that were made at that time. I share the view of many in the industry that the Government are quite happy for HLCA payments to wither on the vine. Year after year, there is either a cash cut or a freeze, which, in effect, is a cut in real terms. Over a decade or more, the value of HLCA payments has been eroded year after year. That might fit well with the Government's intention to introduce a more market-oriented approach for agriculture.
How committed are the Government to maintaining HLCA payments? The Minister must be aware that the payments are much more important in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Less-favoured areas cover 80 per cent. of the land mass of our country,

337
whereas the figure is 53 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Net farm incomes in less-favoured areas in Wales are less than £11,000 a year—hardly an income for a young family. Low incomes and cuts in HLCA payments have led to a gradual reduction in the number of people employed in rural areas.
In England and Wales since 1987, the number of people employed full-time in agriculture has decreased by 35 per cent. The purpose of HLCA payments is, first, to maintain incomes and, secondly, to maintain the number of people in employment in rural areas, but the Government are effectively contributing further to the depopulation of rural areas in Wales by constantly eroding the value of the payments. We want to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State for Wales is prepared to stand up to his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Treasury and demand measures to protect those who live in our countryside.
It is worth noting that the Government are out of step with other European Union member states on the issue of HLCA payments. This year, for example, France has increased its payments. Finland, Austria and Sweden pay the maximum available under EU regulations. No other member states cut HLCA payments in 1993-94.
The Government's proposals to reduce the maximum number of ewes on which HLCAs may be claimed in disadvantaged areas is fiercely resisted in Wales. The cut from nine to six was slipped in surreptitiously in the general debate on HLCA payments in October. The Minister will be aware that farms in disadvantaged areas are quite small, and average incomes are even lower than in the upland areas. The average income is about £8,000 a year. These are small farms, and their economies are fragile.
Will the Minister listen to representations on these changes, having tried to slip them in through the back door in October 1995? The Government say that, effectively, they are trying to get rid of an anomaly between disadvantaged areas and severely disadvantaged areas, but it is an anomaly of their own creation, because they cut HLCA payments in 1993-94. There is a simple way to correct that anomaly: by returning the payments to their 1992 level. As I understand it, the European Commission has not demanded that this anomaly be addressed in the way that the Government propose.
Welsh farmers are also concerned about the possible threat to the transfer of their sheep and suckler cow quota from the Welsh LFA ring fence. I am aware that the Government have to reassess all the applications for developers' quota from the 1993 reserves, but any move to pinch quota from the Welsh LFA ring fence will be fiercely resisted. We know that the Government are under pressure to pay compensation in other parts of the country, but the Welsh LFA quota is not for transfer, and we demand an assurance that the Minister will stand up for the interests of Welsh farmers on this issue. If any quota is under-subscribed in the Welsh LFA, it should be used to assist young entrants in Wales. The Government could face a challenge in the European Court, because they may breach European Commission regulations if they act in the way that I have described.
Over the years, farmers have come to accept that agri-environmental payments will play an increasingly vital role in support mechanisms for the industry. Any
338
reform of the CAP must be seen in the context of further aid for uncoupling from production and increasing payments to farmers as stewards of the countryside. Such payments are entirely consistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Agri-environmental schemes have had mixed success in Wales. There is no doubt that Tir Cymen has proved much more successful in its pilot phase than environmentally sensitive area payments. In my area, for example, ESAs have not been as successful as predicted, and fewer farmers have joined the schemes than I expected. Will the Minister assure us that, when the Tir Cymen scheme is being evaluated and the pilot scheme is being concluded, the Welsh Office will consider the introduction of an integrated agri-environmental scheme operated by a single organisation? Such a scheme could involved tiered payments; farmers could participate at whatever level they wished. That would save on administration, make the scheme easier to understand and ensure a consistent and coherent approach throughout the country. Wales could be a pioneer.
The Minister will be aware that the European Commission will shortly consider further reforms to the CAP. As agriculture is so important to Wales, I hope that the Secretary of State will play a leading role in the discussions, and will attend the Council of Ministers to ensure that the voice of Welsh agriculture is heard in the forum where real decisions are made. Eighty per cent. of decisions affecting agriculture are made not in Westminster but in Brussels. I am sure that I need not remind the Secretary of State for Wales that he is also Minister with responsibilities for agriculture in Wales. He should not take his lead from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or from anyone else; he needs to understand that we in Wales have different needs and concerns.
In the past few days, the European Commission has produced a paper on CAP reform and enlargement. It proposes incremental reform rather than a radical programme for change. We need to consider the issue differently in Wales, because our economy has a different agricultural base. We are primarily a livestock-producing country; we have small and medium-sized family farms, and few opportunities for diversification. Wholesale reform of the CAP in a short time, which the Government seem to be proposing, would be disastrous for our rural economy.
In the early 1990s, when these matters were last discussed, the Government attacked the MacSharry proposals for reform on the basis that they did not go far enough and seemed to protect small and medium-sized family farms. It must be said that the Commission and MacSharry understood the problems of Welsh agriculture much better than the Minister of Agriculture in the United Kingdom. As it happened, when the package of proposals was agreed, it was, on the whole, well received in Wales.
We feel that any proposals for change must build on the MacSharry proposals. The Minister must remember that most Welsh farmers work in an inhospitable climate, with difficult land and—as I have said—little scope for diversification. We cannot afford to introduce overnight drastic changes that would threaten an already fragile rural economy. Support measures are vital if the economy is to prosper.

339
As the Minister knows, the way in which support is given may change. The structure of payments may alter, and more emphasis may be placed on agri-environmental payments than on aids to production. Nevertheless, maintaining support is crucial, and the Welsh Office must argue that case where it counts.
I am aware that one of the reasons that the Prime Minister has given for wanting expansion of the European Union is the fact that it gives us an opportunity to revamp the CAP. That means radical change. It means cutting the budget, and it means that Welsh farmers will be affected. In its proposals for change, the Welsh Office must argue the case for Welsh farmers, the Welsh countryside and the Welsh rural economy. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us.
I am sure that the Minister will wish to pay tribute to the tremendous contribution of Welsh farmers to the Welsh economy. I have highlighted some of the problems that we face in the short, medium and long term; I feel that the industry needs a clear indication of the Government's attitude. As I have said, those farmers have made a tremendous contribution to our economy over generations. The Minister should recognise the contribution by offering not just words of praise, but a detailed programme of action and support.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his acknowledgement of what was necessary to enable both of us to appear here this morning—the unusual coincidence of the Welsh Grand Committee's sitting ending just as this debate was due to begin—and for giving notice of the matters that he intended to raise.
The hon. Gentleman's concerns and my opening of the Royal Welsh winter show in Builth Wells yesterday seem to have coincided. Indeed, I was struck by the similarity of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of agriculture to the rural economy with what I said yesterday, to which this morning's Western Mail has helpfully given full coverage.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the support that the Government give to people entering the agriculture industry. Both the quota schemes that currently operate in the beef and sheep sectors include special arrangements allowing new entrants access to quota from the sheep and suckler cow scheme national reserves. The introduction of farm business tenancies will help to ensure that more land is available for new entrants to rent.
A wide range of courses is available to prospective new entrants through agricultural colleges. New entrants can also take advantage of the extensive range of training courses that are available through ATB-Landbase and other training providers. We are working with ATB-Landbase to raise awareness of skills gaps and deficiencies, and the benefits to both new and established businesses of strategic business planning and training.
The agricultural element of the objective 5b programme is partly financed by the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund, which provides opportunities for the farming community in relation to business development, agri-tourism and countryside enhancement. Young
340
farmers have been identified as a priority group to receive benefit from that programme. Training and enterprise councils also have a role to play through business start-up activities, and business links will be an important contact point for new entrants seeking advice on business set-up and development matters.
I can tell the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that, at the end of 1994, bank borrowing advances were lower than they were in 1993. That reduction reflects the improvement in incomes that occurred in 1992-93 and 1993-94. Last week, we announced that the 1996 rates of hill livestock compensatory allowance would be maintained at 1995 levels. That is a positive step, which demonstrates our continuing commitment to upland farmers, despite another tight public expenditure round this year.
Net farm incomes are forecast to increase by an average of 13 per cent. in the less-favoured areas as a whole in 1995-96 compared with 1994-95. Notwithstanding reductions in HLCA rates in 1993, real-terms incomes in 1995-96 are still 27 per cent. above the average for the difficult years of 1990-91 and 1991-92. That economic data, which form the basis of the autumn review, did not support the farming industry's call for a restoration of the amount cut in the previous year. The forecasts do not take account of the recent devaluation of the green pound, which will result in a further increase in sheep annual premium rates from 1995 and an increase in suckler cow premium scheme and beef special premium scheme rates from 1996.
Going beyond our determination to sustain current hill livestock compensatory allowance payment rates for a further year, I am aware of the anxieties that have been expressed about the recent statutory instrument relating to a number of eligible sheep in the disadvantaged region. I reiterate what has already been said in the Welsh Grand Committee: that was a technical amendment necessary at the time in order not to prejudice the outcome of the autumn review. The final decision on the stocking rate will be taken once we have a clearer idea of the exchange rate that will apply for the 1996 scheme. Meanwhile, producers should understand that the exchange rate fluctuations that have forced that amendment mean that the payment rate will be at least that of 1995—£2.44—and probably higher.
It must be remembered that hill livestock compensatory allowances are neither the only nor the most financially significant of the subsidies being paid to farmers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales explained at the Welsh Grand Committee, planned expenditure in the next financial year on the three main market support schemes—the sheep annual premium, the suckler cow premium scheme and the beef special premium scheme—is £43 million, 28 per cent. higher than expenditure only two years ago.
Concerns over the safety of beef have increased recently. I think that the hon. Gentleman would join me in saying that we must not overreact to that issue. There is no scientific evidence of a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The latest report from the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease unit confirms that there has been no change in the epidemiological or clinical characteristics of CJD since the occurrence of BSE. The incidence of the disease is similar to that in countries with no BSE or scrapie.

341
All the available evidence continues to confirm the Government's view that the feed ban will lead to the disease's end. The number of suspect cases of BSE reported up to October 1995 was nearly 43 per cent. lower than the same period in 1994. The Government have introduced a comprehensive range of measures, based on the best independent scientific advice available, to safeguard the public from any remote risk to human health from BSE. Beef is recognised as safe by the Department of Health's chief medical officer, and I freely say that I find that advice totally reassuring. I am more than content to continue eating beef on a very regular basis.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me about the considerable inroads that we have made in Wales in implementing schemes approved by the European Commission.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The greatest step that the Minister and the Government could take would be to introduce an early retirement scheme, favoured by the European Union and in fact, to a large extent, financed by it. Why will not the Government put their hand in their pocket and do the right thing?
Mr. Jones: As I have tried to explain before to the hon. Gentleman, when making spending decisions, one must make choices about priorities. I was going to acknowledge later that his party is the exception in that it is committed to increasing taxation on the people of Wales. [Interruption.] The people who had to go to the High Court or wherever else may also be in favour of it, but he and his small party say that the people of Wales should pay higher taxation.
I know that, if his party's policies were followed through to the ultimate and we were separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, we would pay very high taxation, but decisions must be made: either we put taxation up—and I believe that we are absolutely right in responding to the public demand to return to cutting taxation—or we must take money from elsewhere. I invite the hon. Gentleman to volunteer whether we should take it from health, from education or wherever else to fund such a scheme, if we do not increase taxation. I acknowledge that there is a difference between us on that matter. He is in favour of increased taxation.
I remind the House of the considerable progress that we have made in Wales in implementing schemes approved by the European Commission. Schemes for Wales encourage farming methods that will help to protect the Welsh landscape and habitats, and provide opportunities for people to enjoy the countryside. New measures approved by the European Commission include an organic scheme launched on 1 September 1994, a countryside access scheme launched on 8 September 1994, a habitat scheme launched on 9 January 1995, and a moorland scheme launched on 1 May 1995.
Wales has six environmentally sensitive areas, covering about one quarter of the land. On 1 March this year, new payments to promote public access were launched for all Welsh environmentally sensitive areas. The environmentally sensitive areas scheme is innovative, in that it was the first to adopt a "whole farm" approach rather than to target individual habitat types. It has been approved by the European Commission, along with the
342
Countryside Council for Wales's pilot Tir Cymen scheme, which also has a strong agricultural and environmental focus. Taken together, environmentally sensitive areas and Tir Cymen schemes cover about a third of the agricultural areas in Wales.
I think that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn will have heard me say at Welsh questions on Monday that Tir Cymen is to be reviewed at the end of its planned five-year life. I am confident that the review will consider all the points that he has in mind.
We are paying 99 per cent. of management agreement claims within the two-month charter target, but we are taking longer than I would wish to process new applications. That is partly because we are providing farmers with more help in preparing their applications, which takes time, but in the end it will lead to a better arrangement.
It is in the long-term interests of farmers, consumers and taxpayers that there should be a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. At present, other European Union member states remain to be convinced of that, but the European Union's commitments under the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the potential accession of eastern European countries make change inevitable. We need to move away from a production system to a market-driven one. Any change must allow a period of transition during which farmers can adjust, but now is the time for producers to consider how best to meet the market's demands. The industry in Wales is well placed to meet the greater challenges of a more competitive market.
In leading the Welsh Office trade mission to Australia and New Zealand, I was struck by comments about what New Zealand had done in its agriculture sector. That was initiated by a Labour Government who have revolutionised the approach. One comment that I recollect from my visit to New Zealand—which was far too brief, and I do not claim to be an expert on the matter there—showed that the relevant standing of farmers had been increased. That appeared to be acknowledged on all sides.
This is not the stage to say that what has been done in New Zealand must be done here, but it shows that there is room for study. The hon. Gentleman drew some European comparisons, not all of which were strictly relevant, as it is always difficult to take things in isolation, but what happens in some other countries could be examined to find out whether they apply here. I give no more commitment than that, other than to state my interest in the revolutionary approach in New Zealand—a country that has many similarities with Wales, including size and devotion to our national game.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: It is much better than us in that.
Mr. Jones: Only at the moment. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we won the last game.
The Government continue to provide substantial support for the agriculture sector in Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier today, planned expenditure will rise by £9 million—a 3.4 per cent. increase—to £271,500,000 for the next financial year. I should have thought that this morning's debate in the Welsh Grand Committee would have established the point that we are responding to an

343
overwhelming demand—it is coming from practically everywhere except Plaid Cymru—that we should return to cutting taxation.
Mr. Llwyd: In a very wide poll in last Sunday's edition of The Sunday Times, 70 per cent. of respondents said that they were not in favour of tax cuts. Conversely, they wanted more public spending.
Mr. Jones: There are lies, damned lies and statistics, if I am permitted to make that observation in this place. I certainly hear those demands from constituents and others throughout Wales, and I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not hear substantial demands. As I have said, his party is one of the rare exceptions in not calling for more tax cuts.
We do not know where the official Opposition stand in Wales, because they will not come clean on the subject. Their only approach to the debate on taxation is that they do not know. However, they broadly agree that we should return to cutting taxation. That is evident from their not voting after the Budget debate last night. We are responding to the public demand to cut taxation and, in our honest way of managing Government business, we are ensuring that that is balanced by expenditure. In so doing we have placed a high priority on farmers.

Health Services (Barking)
1.30 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out my real concerns about the state of the health service in my constituency. Two weeks ago I published and sent to the Minister a document entitled, "Health in Barking: Getting a Raw Deal?", a dossier of the worst health cases that have come to my attention during my 18 months as a Member of Parliament. I have been deeply shocked by the poor quality of health care that is encountered by all too many of my constituents. A Member of Parliament's surgery is the last resort for many people, yet we see probably only the tip of the iceberg because, as we all know, many people do not know who their Member of Parliament is, do not know that we hold surgeries and do not think that we can help.
Of course there are many highly skilled and dedicated professionals in the health service in Barking, and I know many of them. But too many of my constituents are being short-changed by the national health service. Too many of those who have come to see me have suffered unnecessarily and for the wrong reasons. Their stories are partly about under-resourcing, but they are also about bureaucratic bungling and unacceptable standards of care.
What about those who do not come to the surgery? I spend a great deal of my time visiting the old people's luncheon clubs in Barking where I meet the people who are most dependent on the health service. Elderly women with chronic conditions often say to me, "I can't get to my hospital appointment any longer and the GP is just too busy." For those women the hospitals are too far away, ambulance services have been cut, public transport is hopelessly inadequate and they cannot afford the taxi fare, so they do not go. Their health is not regularly checked, so they lose out and will probably never know the impact that that will have.
Barking is served by the Barking and Havering health authority. My constituency is the area of greatest need in that district, yet it has the poorest services. We have the highest concentration of elderly people. Infant mortality rates are twice those in the more affluent neighbouring Havering, and 10 per cent. higher than the average for England and Wales. However, the hospitals are all concentrated in the areas of lesser need. That is happening in the knowledge that 40 per cent. of local people do not have access to a car.
The area is changing. The Barking reach development will not only increase the population but will mean an expanding number of children. By the year 2001, the number of under-14s in Barking will have increased by 10 per cent. Those changes will bring new challenges tomorrow to a health service that is already failing to meet the challenges of today.
Barking has long been denied its fair share of health resources, and decisions in recent years have made a bad situation even worse. There is no hospital in my constituency: Barking hospital was closed. There is no hospital in the borough. Rush Green hospital in Dagenham has gone and, despite protestations from all local Members, the Government recently condemned the nearest hospital at Oldchurch to a slow death by deciding to close its accident and emergency unit.
Unbelievably, within months of deciding to close Oldchurch, the health authority has decided to conduct a new review of acute services in our district. The acute

345
services have been reviewed and re-reviewed, and are now to be reviewed again. What bungling incompetence. Hardly is the ink dry on the Minister's signature on a document to close yet another accident and emergency unit than the authority realises what we have been telling it for months, that the other hospitals simply cannot cope.
I shall briefly reflect on the miserable story of Barking hospital. Shortly before the first world war, local people collected money to build a hospital to meet their medical needs. The hospital was built by the voluntary efforts of local people. New blocks were added in the 1930s and 1960s. In the 1980s, some £6 million was invested in a new maternity wing which opened in 1987, and further moneys were spent on a nurses' training centre. Just four years later, despite a vigorous campaign that was led by my predecessor, Jo Richardson, it was decided to close that hospital.
Anyone who visits that site today would see a shocking testament to the Government's health reforms. Perfectly sound buildings are lying empty, windows are smashed, and forgotten beds are strewn over empty wards. Money has been wasted while patients suffer. Little remains on the site. There are four acute elderly wards and a minor injuries unit which, ironically, is housed in the £6 million purpose-built modern maternity unit. It is a tragic waste of hospital resources.
The withering away of Barking hospital is just one of many causes for concern in my constituency and, taken together with the decision to close the accident and emergency department at Oldchurch hospital in Romford, it is a disaster. It means that poorer people in Barking will have to travel to the richer edges of Essex, which is 12 miles from the centre of Barking, to be treated in what is now their local district hospital. Many of them have never heard of Harold Wood hospital, nor have they been to it. They cannot even find it. Public transport is dire and they cannot afford taxis.
I have long argued that one accident and emergency unit serving 400,000 people is just not enough, and that is evident from the cases that I describe in my dossier. The majority of those cases are of people who have been let down by the various local hospitals and they include several which, tragically, ended in death. Each case is unique, but there is a pattern consisting of a mixture of long waiting lists, under-resourcing and occasional incompetence. I shall illustrate that with just one example, which is by no means the most extreme in the dossier.
Mrs. T, a constituent, went to King George hospital a year ago. She had very high blood pressure and her heart was beating erratically. In the casualty department, she was left without help for hours. She complained, and was finally given an ECG. After that, she was again left for 35 minutes waiting to be examined by a doctor. Mrs. T is diabetic and has to have a regular eating pattern. She felt so ill that she left the hospital without seeing a doctor. Six months later, she was admitted to King George hospital with acute pancreatitis. She was told that she needed a gall bladder removed, and an appointment was set for a month later for an internal camera investigation.
On the morning of her appointment, Mrs. T rang to check that a bed was available, and was assured that there was. However, later that day the hospital rang to say that
346
no beds were available and that her admission would be delayed by another month. Subsequently she was put off twice again because of a lack of beds. She was so appalled that she and her husband reluctantly joined a private health scheme.
I know of dozens of similar cases, but I have to say that I expect that they are only a small proportion of the total. The people of Barking are remarkably reluctant to complain. That was brought home to me by the stark contrast between the campaign over the closure of the A and E service at Oldchurch and the massive campaigns around St. Bartholomew's and Guy's. I am seeking to give voice not only to the 60 or so constituents who have taken the trouble to come to see me, but to the hundreds of people in Barking who have not had the confidence to do so.
Much of this might not matter so much if the primary health care service were good. It is not. Some dedicated and skilled practitioners work in Barking, but the infrastructure is not sufficiently robust to cope with the additional pressures brought about by the hospital closure programme.
Recently, the family health services authority conducted a survey on the quality of premises in Barking. Patients have to see their doctors under unacceptable conditions. Of the 55 GP premises in the borough, almost three in four are classified as poor, only three are considered to be good, and none falls into the best classification.
If one then considers the statistics on GP case loads and GP support, one finds equal cause for concern. One in four GPs in Barking work as single practitioners. The average list size for GPs is almost 2,500 patients—it is 2,464. If one compares that with the national statistics, one finds that only 8 per cent. have a list of more than 2,500 patients. Barking residents are again getting a raw deal. Indeed, there is more cause for concern. One in 10 practices have no practice nurse, there are few training doctors, and professional training facilities for Barking GPs are not good.
All those factors show. My dossier does not simply describe cases in which individuals were given the runaround by their GPs: it includes two cases where, on the face of it, death might have been avoided if the GP had acted properly for the patient as a first point of call.
My constituent Mr. Ayling is still in regular contact with me. He lost his daughter Maria because nobody spotted early enough that she had a thrombosis as a result of taking one of the pills that we now know to be dangerous. Mr. Ayling is still fighting for an honest account of the treatment that his daughter received from the local health services. He has been forced to take legal action to obtain even a proper inquest into Maria's death. In the end, I think that he will receive some financial compensation, but we all know that nothing is enough to make up for the loss of one's child. It is in the memory of Maria and others like her that I am fighting in this public way for the Government's recognition and for action to give my constituents a fair deal from the NHS.
The local health authorities may not like this and may want to work behind the scenes. In a recent letter to me, the chairpersons of the FHSA and the district health authority stated that:
"the number of complaints are few."

347
Indeed they are, but that shows a lack of understanding by the authorities of Barking people. They do not easily complain; they are not comfortable in challenging authority. But since I have started raising the issues locally, I have been inundated with constituents' letters supporting what I am doing. My first duty is to them.
Barking is a wonderful part of east London, with strong, close-knit communities. It is an area rich in tradition, which is about to undergo major changes with the advent of the channel tunnel rail link and the massive new community of Barking reach. Our local health service is under strain. I want to be sure that we can meet the new challenges and opportunities that we face. I ask the Minister to respond to three specific issues.
First, I ask the Minister to halt any closures—including the planned closure of the A and E unit at Oldchurch—until two things have happened. We must have in place good primary health care that can cope with the legitimate demands of people in Barking, and the authorities must complete their latest review of the acute services for local residents, to ensure that we do not simply close facilities today and find that we have to create new ones tomorrow.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to instruct the authorities to expedite the review of the Barking hospital site so that our precious health resources are not left to waste and decay. We want that site used for health purposes, and brought back into use quickly. Thirdly, I ask the Minister to examine new ways in which we can recruit and retain quality GPs in urban areas such as Barking. We will never get the health services to which my constituents are entitled if we do not bring in effective measures to tackle the problem.
Those are practical measures that will offer reassurance to people in my constituency who are desperately worried about the state of the local health service. My constituents are not professional whingers. The complaints that I have compiled in my dossier are real, and an enormous cause for concern. There are many dedicated and hard-working people working in the health service in my constituency. There are also many elderly and deprived people whose needs are not being met. We owe it to both groups to make things better, so that, once again, people feel safe and certain that they will enjoy the first-class service to which they are entitled.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I congratulate her on securing time to debate the very important topic of health care in Barking. Although it is obviously important to her, it is important to all of us. I listened carefully to her points, including the three final issues. I can confirm that I have read her report, which she kindly passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Obviously it is always regrettable when a patient has to wait for a lengthy period for necessary treatment under the national health service. It is equally regrettable when operations are postponed at the last minute—the hon. Lady cited the case of Mrs. T, which was certainly regrettable—or when the care provided falls below the highest standards. However, the hon. Lady failed in her report and in this debate to take account of the very real improvements taking place in her area, as well as nationally, under the NHS.
348
In any part of the country there will inevitably be problems from time to time in an organisation as large as the NHS, but what is rarely mentioned by Opposition Members is the huge proportion of patients—I am sure that that must include patients in Barking—who are more than satisfied with the service that they receive.
In the majority of cases quoted by the hon. Member in her report, the main cause for complaint has been a delay in treatment being received. I certainly agree with her wholeheartedly that people have had to wait too long for treatment. That is why reducing waiting times has been a priority for the Government in their handling of the NHS.
In 1979, more than 185,000 patients in England were waiting more than a year to enter hospital. Today, that figure is down to 28,000 and falling. I am sure that that drop has affected Barking. That statistic alone demonstrates the scale of the progress that we are making. Admittedly, progress in reducing waiting times has varied—and still varies—throughout the country. It is undoubtedly true that some patients in the North Thames region, which includes Barking, have had to wait longer than patients in other parts of the country, and I consider that unacceptable.
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Lady that concerted action is therefore being taken by health authorities in North Thames precisely on that point, so as to reduce waiting times for its patients. That action is already producing results. Over the past year, the number of patients waiting for treatment in the North Thames region has fallen more quickly than the national average, and the number waiting for more than a year has fallen by more than 21 per cent.
The hon. Member's local hospitals are at the forefront of those developments. In the past year, Havering hospital's NHS trust has seen a fall of almost three quarters in the number of patients waiting more than a year—that is a huge improvement. The number waiting for more than a year at the neighbouring King George hospital has fallen by more than a quarter in the three months from June, and that improvement is continuing.
I am also pleased to report that, from 1 April 1996, Barking and Havering health authority expects and hopes that no patient will have to wait longer than nine months for treatment from the time that they are placed on a waiting list. That is obviously its intention and aim, and I certainly hope that it fulfils it. Indeed, we shall be seeing whether it can.
Decisions about how and when to treat patients are of course made by clinicians—not by politicians or by managers. A doctor decides whether a patient is not yet ready for treatment or whether he needs treatment immediately, and his decision stands. Of those patients nationally who doctors judge can wait for treatment, the figures show that fully half are admitted to hospital within six weeks and almost three quarters within six months.
The hon. Lady complained about a lack of resources being devoted to the health service. Obviously, it has escaped her notice that the figure for 1978-79 was £6.5 billion, since when there has been a 70 per cent. increase. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced further substantial increases immediately after the Budget. Current spending on health will grow by £1.3 billion in the next financial year, equivalent in real terms to 1.6 per cent. Therefore, the Government have every reason to be extremely proud of

349
their record on funding and support for the NHS. In fact, the Barking and Havering health authority has received a increase for next year of 3.79 per cent.—about £171 million.
Obviously, I fully accept that, as the hon. Lady said, historically primary care in London, and especially in her area, has been underdeveloped and in need of substantial improvement. That goes without saying. However, welcome improvements are taking place as a result of the Government's efforts. The hon. Lady made a point about quality general practitioners. That is being tackled through current measures. Therefore, I take exception to her comments that over the past few years all the decisions have been the wrong way. The decisions in this area are profoundly in the right direction.
An example of that is the London initiative zone, which was established to concentrate effort and investment in those areas of London where primary care services are weakest. As a result, almost £4 million has been allocated over the last three years to improve the primary care facilities in the Barking area alone. The number of general practitioner practices in Barking and Havering classified as poor has fallen from 72 per cent. in 1992 to only 31 per cent. this year. That is a staggering improvement.
During the past five years, three purpose-built health centres have been opened. Indeed, the hon. Lady performed the opening ceremony for one of them. A further four health centres have undergone extensive refurbishment or been extended in the same period. More than 20 other GP practices have received funds to improve their premises.
Other improvements to primary care services include the near doubling of the number of practice nurses working in Barking and Dagenham since 1993-94 and an increase from 37 per cent. to 93 per cent. in the level of computerised GP practices since 1992-93.
The hon. Lady referred to the problem of GP recruitment and spoke about the quality of GPs in her area. There is a high proportion of one or two-doctor practices in Barking. The Government are well aware of the problems and, from September this year, introduced a series of special allowances for London to help deal with them. They are designed to attract new GPs into London, to encourage high-quality GPs to stay, to create capacity for practice improvement and to encourage GPs in single-handed practices and partnerships of two doctors to meet to work together on the development of primary care services.
All those allowances are payable only if progress is made in improving patient care through better practice organisation and training. They will encourage
350
collaborative working and help to overcome professional isolation, which is a problem in areas such as Barking and which can be experienced by some GPs in small practices.
Those initiatives complement new educational opportunities for London GPs, which we announced in October last year. They were drawn up with support from the London FHSA management and the local medical committees. We are making £15 million available for 1995-96, increasing to £20 million for 1996-97, to support that programme.
All the initiatives and improvements that I have cited demonstrated the great progress being made in primary care in particular, both in Barking and nationally. Obviously, in no way would I wish to play down the highly regrettable individual cases that featured so largely in the hon. Lady's speech. However, as I said, there is very firm progress in reducing waiting times still further, and, equally important, in improving primary care in an area that historically has been very deprived. The hon. Lady can be assured that I have absolutely no doubt of the Government's determination to achieve that.
I believe that, in the hon. Lady's part of the world, the local health authority, NHS trusts and GPs are working together very effectively. I hope that she will pay regard to that in any future remarks. She mentioned the letters of complaint that she had received about her remarks from the chairmen of the health authorities and from local doctors. I understand her position—a Member of Parliament must raise these matters. However, she should remember that it is right to be fair and to remember the effect of her comments on the morale of those working in the health service. Therefore, I hope that she will always present a balanced report. I assure her that progress is being made in the way that I have outlined.
It being six minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BILL PRESENTED
    CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Forsyth presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment (to be presented under section 7 of the Act).
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Public Sector Research Establishments
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the recent efficiency scrutiny of the public sector research establishments. [2599]
    The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): The scrutiny was carried out by the efficiency unit within the Cabinet Office. As stated in the report, the cost of undertaking the scrutiny was approximately £157,000. The Office of Science and Technology is co-ordinating the action resulting from the scrutiny.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that, quite apart from the efforts of the scrutiny team, an enormous amount of fact finding had to take place in the institutes themselves, leading to scientists carrying out administrative work rather than scientific research? Those involved are now to be rewarded with yet another departmental review, which could lead to threats of redundancy and privatisation at institutes such as the one at Babraham near my constituency. Are the Government really aware of what efficiency means?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady needs to know that it was exactly in response to the scrutiny process and the extensive consultation period that we entered into the prior options reviews. Many laboratories need to be looked at to see whether they are best positioned to serve the customer. One fifth of the Government's research expenditure is spent through research establishments, and it behoves the hon. Lady to join the Government in making sure that that money is properly spent.

    Natural Gas Reserves
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has for the length of time that proven reserves of natural gas will last; and if he will make a statement. [2600]
    The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): Reserves which have been fully tested and proven would last 10 years at current rates of production. Other UK reserves and known geological potential could raise this to some 58 years.
    Mr. Mullin: No doubt more gas will be discovered, but with the benefit of hindsight does the Minister not consider it folly to have collapsed a large part of the coal industry, to have encouraged gas-fired power stations and to have made us dependent on a fuel of which there are only 10 years' of proven reserves left?
    Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for providing me with two golden opportunities. First, I must point to the success of the gas industry. The hon. Gentleman may remember that, back in 1975, all the pundits and experts were saying that this would be the year when all the supplies would run out. As I have said, however, proven resources will last for at least 10 years, while others could potentially last for up to 58 years. Looking at the hon. Gentleman, I can say that that will see him out without any difficulty whatsoever.
    352
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's question enables me to say that production levels in the coal industry—now that the industry has moved into other hands—are up by some 9 per cent. That is a huge tribute to privatisation. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for allowing me to state that.
    Mr. Battle: Who does the Minister hold responsible for the locked-in, take-or-pay, long-term North sea gas contracts? Should not the Government be acting now to sort out the mess before the new Gas Act comes into force and the whole gas industry is faced with full-blown competition?
    Mr. Page: I should point out that the contracts were entered into when the industry was in its nationalised state. The Government have made it clear that some modification in British Gas's old contracts is inevitable, and we have called for serious and detailed discussions.

    Confederation of British Industry Conference
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of his address to the CBI conference. [2601]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I have placed a copy of my speech to the CBI on 14 November 1995 in the Library.
    Mr. Canavan: If the President insists that job insecurity is just a state of mind, is his own marginal majority of 2,468 just a figment of his imagination—or does he ever sense the reality that his own jacket is on a shoogly nail?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman misquotes me in order to misrepresent what I said about job insecurity. We all recognise that job insecurity exists; the important thing is to do something about it. The Government have created an economic recovery in which more than 500,000 jobs have been created since the end of the recession. Those increased jobs and the fall in unemployment represent the best way of creating job security for the future.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social chapter is not an à la carte menu? If so, will he tell that fact to the leader of the lot opposite, who when he addressed the Confederation of British Industry either told a pack of lies or did not understand the implications of the social chapter? And did that not show everyone how totally lacking that man is in the qualities necessary to become leader of this country?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my speech in Birmingham, I pointed out how the CBI might have been misled by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the social chapter was just a set of principles and involved no detailed legislation, when in fact we would not be able to pick and choose which parts of it to accept and which to disregard: measures subject to qualified majority voting would be forced on Britain whether we wanted them or not—that is why we must not accept the social chapter.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when he went to the CBI, its message to Government, as to Opposition, was that it sought support for investment in industry, the sustaining or improvement of investment in education, and no cuts in infrastructure spending? Will

    353
    he confirm that his speech, like the Budget, either ignored or rejected all those representations? As the Red Book shows that investment growth, predicted last year to be nearly 6 per cent., turned out to be a mere 1 per cent., is it not gross dereliction of duty for the Government not to heed those requests to support investment?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Lady may like to know that the president of the CBI, Sir Bryan Nicholson, was quoted in The Scotsman on 15 November as having said, after my speech at the CBI conference, that the CBI was "appreciative and strongly supportive" of the Government. The CBI also warmly welcomed the Budget, and it was right to do so, because the business community recognises that the economic recovery now under way will be strengthened and carried forward by the Budget that the House approved last night.
    Mr. Nicholls: As my right hon. Friend is placing a copy of his speech in the Library, will he also deposit a copy of an article by Stanley Ka1ms, chief executive of Dixons, who also attended the CBI conference? Stanley Kalms is a business man who knows what he is talking about, and he referred to a growing credibility gap for the Leader of the Opposition, with figures which do not add up without a massive increase in taxation. Finally, he asked who would look through the smokescreen that the Leader of the Opposition had tried to erect. Would it not be a good idea if a copy of that article, too, were placed in the Library?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I am keen to have the Labour party's detailed policies fully exposed to the business community and to the rest of the country—for example, Labour's polices on the social chapter, on a national minimum wage and on the trade unions, all of which would cost jobs.

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department is pursuing to bring further trade opportunities into rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [2603]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Philip Oppenheim): The DTI offers a range of export services which are integrated as Overseas Trade Services and include export services provided by the Welsh Office Industry Department, Scottish Trade International and the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland. A range of other services to assist in the development of rural areas is offered through Business Links.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. He may be unaware of the vast rural depopulation of large areas of Wales and England. According to recent university research, there is a great deal of serious rural poverty. The initiatives to which he has referred will not even scratch the face of the problem.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points, but his own constituency has benefited from no fewer than 11 inward investment projects over the past few years, and unemployment is down by a quarter over the past three years. While problems exist, it is wrong to suggest that Government policies are not affecting them beneficially.
    Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for anyone who wants to make trading opportunities in the
    354
    countryside—whether in Wales, Scotland or, in my case, the Forest of Dean—what is required is that wealth creators go and set up in those districts? Does he recognise what a magnificent contribution the Rural Development Commission has made to helping businesses set up in rural areas?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I entirely endorse the comments of my hon. Friend, and I would go further. Many companies which operate in rural areas are, of course, small companies. The Budget will help those small companies by cutting their rate of corporation tax, which will help 300,000 companies—many of which will operate in rural areas. The cut in the base rate to 24p will help 3 million self-employed people. That will make a further contribution to the fairly significant fall in unemployment in my hon. Friend's part of the country.
    Mr. MacShane: The Minister is one of the glittering stars of the London social scene and has probably never had time to visit my constituency of Rotherham, where he will find that 65 per cent. of Rotherham metropolitan borough council is rural and a wonderful site for inward investment. Why, according to figures that I have just received, have the rateable values for businesses, factories and offices increased in the past five years by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. in Yorkshire but decreased in inner London? Could he do a little less for his cronies on corrupt city councils such as Westminster and a little more for industry and business in Yorkshire?
    Mr. Oppenheim: It would be churlish of me not to start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his heartfelt tribute, which I know was meant warmly. As for corruption in local councils, the hon. Gentleman may have thrown me a boomerang by mentioning that. Just down the road from his constituency is Derbyshire county council, which has been indicted for corruption many times. We do not have only to consider Derbyshire; we also have Lambeth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question.]—and the failure of local government in Islington.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key to inward investment, especially in rural areas, is communications? Will he consider the decision to put on to the long-term programme the Kingskerswell bypass, which is a key to prosperity south Devon? It is a key link in to all the constituencies of south Devon, which will rely for future employment on that road. Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Transport?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, to whom those comments would be most appropriately addressed. My hon. Friend mentioned inward investment. There is a massive contrast with the late 1970s, when international companies were falling over themselves to move production from Britain, and when Germans were refusing to buy cars made in the UK plants of Ford and General Motors. Now we attract 40 per cent. of the inward investment into Europe from Japan and the United States—including Ford and GM, which are once again large exporters from Britain along with Toyota, Nissan, Honda and, I am pleased to say, Rover.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister recognise the importance to rural areas of the Post Office and the Royal Mail network? Why have the Government decided to

    355
    impose a steeper external financing limit on the Post Office, which goes back on commitments given in the House by the President of the Board of Trade on 11 May? What does the Minister estimate the effect of that will be on investment in and the competitiveness of the Post Office?
    Mr. Oppenheim: First, the price of sending letters has fallen in real terms over recent years. Even if the Post Office raises its prices, it is unlikely that they will be in excess of inflation over the three-year term. Secondly, the best way to ensure that the people who use postal services get the good service that they deserve is to ensure that the Post Office is efficient. We believe that there is further scope for efficiency improvements, as shown by recent reports.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the Government maintain their present course in relation to unemployment in rural areas? Will he take it from me that my constituents do not believe the political rhetoric from the Opposition parties, because in my constituency over the past decade employment has increased at the rate of almost 500 new jobs per year?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is sometimes forgotten that, under the last Labour Government, unemployment doubled, manufacturing output fell and manufacturing productivity was stagnant. For the first time since the second world war, over the past 15 years we have closed three quarters of the productivity gap with Germany. That improvement contrasts starkly with the mess that we inherited from the last Labour Government.

    Beer Orders
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had on the Beer Orders. [2604]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Representations recently received by my Department include those on the guest beer provision; whether there would be a review of the brewing industry to consider the effects of the beer orders; the terms of leases offered to tenants; and the refusal to supply beer if a brewer suspects duty fraud.
    Mr. Hughes: I welcome the Minister to his new job. The Chancellor's decision last week not to increase the duty on beer is clearly welcome, but there is still considerable concern in the brewing industry and particularly in the licensed trade that current arrangements for the licensed trade work against the survival of the local pub. I am not making a party political point, but this year could the Minister look again at all the interrelated issues to secure the future of British beer and of the British pub?
    Mr. Taylor: The effect of the Beer Orders has been to weaken the tie, introduce greater versatility in financial matters and introduce guest beers, giving the consumer much more choice and binging competition into the trade.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that British brewers strongly welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's action on beer in the recent Budget? Do not British beers remain the best in the world?
    Mr. Taylor: My word, they certainly do. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, but I stop short in
    356
    my enthusiasm and will not comment on anything that falls within the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Hoon: I welcome the Minister to his new position. Does he agree that the Beer Orders have had a dramatic impact on jobs in the British brewing and licensed retail trade? Does he further agree that those jobs are threatened by the 1.1 million pints of beer flooding into Britain, mainly in the back of transit vans? Does he agree that at least 10,000 jobs have been lost in the industry already, causing uncertainty and insecurity? Does he accept the importance of tackling that job insecurity, or is it just a state of mind?
    Mr. Taylor: Perhaps I may reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's kind opening comment by wishing him a happy birthday. As the ills of which the hon. Gentleman spoke concern duties charged on beers, they are not matters for me. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of fraud or criminal activity, he should tell the prosecuting authorities as well as the Government.
    Mr. John Marshall: I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend on his promotion to the Department of Trade and Industry, and I repeat what other colleagues have said: the greatest threat to the brewing industry is the level of tax. This year we welcomed the first reduction in whisky duty for a century. May we look forward next year to the first reduction in beer duty for many years?
    Mr. Taylor: I am not supposed to comment on the last Budget, so I shall certainly stop short at commenting on the next one.

    Export Opportunities
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist small and medium-sized enterprises to explore new export opportunities. [2605]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): Through Overseas Trade Services, my Department provides a range of assistance to companies wishing to explore new export opportunities. We are also helping smaller firms by the creation of the Business Links network.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that there is a widely held opinion that the support in exporting that British small and medium-sized enterprises receive does not compensate for what is offered in countries such as Germany or Japan? Does he accept that it is vital that that sector of industry receives dedicated assistance which recognises its special needs? Does he accept that it is especially important that small firms should have access to decent language training and to the type of support that the larger firms sector can give them, if small firms are given the opportunity to take that in a way that they find user-friendly?
    Mr. Nelson: I do not accept the first of those propositions. The Government do indeed attach importance to helping small firms to export. That is precisely why we have given an export element to the business links. That is why we have established 100 export promoters. That is why we have set up

    357
    some export development counsellors through business links. I agree with the second of the hon. Gentleman's propositions—that foreign language teaching is important.
    The most important thing for small businesses is to keep their costs down and encourage them, through campaigns, to enter new nearby markets, such as those in Benelux and Ireland. In that way, we can bring about a much-needed substantial improvement in the number of small firms which export.
    Mr. Budgen: Would it not be wise if my hon. Friend emphasised that neither wealth nor happiness nor employment will come from political action, and that he will not help the exporters and take away all their problems any more than the President of the Board of Trade will help all those people who have, sadly, been made unemployed as a result of technological change? Otherwise, if we continue to pretend that all those things will be cured by the politicians, the people may look to other politicians to solve their problems.
    Mr. Nelson: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that that is not what business tells me. Businesses tell me that they would like a helping hand from Government, and that what we are doing, specifically through business links, is very valuable. I agree with my hon. Friend that whatever Government do by way of clever schemes and promotions is very little compared with the importance of macro-economic stability and sound economic finances and management. That is what the Government are doing, and that provides the firmest possible foundation for business and the expansion of small businesses.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that Barclays bank told the Trade and Industry Select Committee that exporting for the first time represented a significant barrier to growth for many small firms, is it not about time that the Minister ensured that the export intelligence service used its time and taxpayers' money to help small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than producing large and very generalised reports for use by large companies?
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Lady makes a constructive criticism. It is the case that we are trying to improve the dissemination of information to small businesses, and I will carefully consider the hon. Lady's argument. We want to make that information friendly to the companies which use it.
    Barclays is well placed to recognise that as a bank it has helped not only nationally but in, among other places, the north-east of this country, where Barclays has a great tradition of helping exporters-—any of which are small firms—to jump that initial barrier. It is difficult for many, and it is costly for them. That is why we have a range of schemes and programmes to assist them. Information is part of it; taking them by the hand to some of the closest markets in Europe is another.
    I repeat that that is very little compared with the importance of a sound economic background against which such companies can grow and expand the base of the markets in which they operate.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the measures in the Budget—reducing corporate taxation and helping on the business rate—are some of the best ways of helping small firms? That leaves more money in the business, and then those firms can afford to organise
    358
    their exporting on their own. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) says, it is much better to take less money in taxation and let them get on with running their business with more money in the bank to expand overseas.
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is spot on. Of course most investment in the business sector comes from reinvested profits, and the extent to which one enables companies to reinvest those net returns is a big determinant, not only of their future expansion, but of their growth into export markets.
    I would mention, however, that in addition to the arguments that my hon. Friend made about the Budget, one of the sectors of increased public expenditure that we herald and welcome is the extra provision for export promotion. That will be very good news for companies which will be left with more resources out of their profits to help themselves, and for companies that cannot help themselves but want to build up new markets. New facilities for export promotion and more money will be available, thanks to the Chancellor.

    Yorkshire Water
    Mr. Madden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from companies in West Yorkshire following advice given by Yorkshire Water in respect of relocation. [2606]
    Mr. Page: My Department has received no formal representations from companies in West Yorkshire on this point, but I am well aware of the concerns that the local business community has about the prospects of cuts in water supply. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration met local business representatives to discuss their concerns when he visited the area on 29 September and 14 November.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister understand that the suggestion from Yorkshire Water that firms should relocate outside West Yorkshire was one of the dafter ideas to come from the unfunny comedians running Yorkshire Water? Does he understand that many firms and businesses in West Yorkshire are extremely worried about the security of water supply for the indefinite future, and certainly for next year? Does he also support a wholly independent inquiry to consider all aspects of the management of Yorkshire Water, the activities of the water regulator and the involvement of the Government?
    Mr. Page: I have been in the House long enough not to try to defend the indefensible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gummer) has stated clearly that the company should have acted much earlier and more comprehensively. I understand that the prospect of cuts is extremely worrying for industry, and my right hon. Friend has said that cuts would be the last resort of last resorts.
    I am able to give the House the good news that, from the low point of 11 November, the levels in the reservoirs have started to rise, and a £50 million-plus programme has been introduced to ensure that the situation does not happen again. That programme will be finished by some time in the middle to late spring.

    359
    On the question of an inquiry, the Government have kept in touch with two independent reports already, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a wider-ranging review on 1 September to consider issues arising from the drought.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Perhaps my hon. Friend cannot agree that it is not Yorkshire businesses that should relocate, but some of the managers and directors of Yorkshire Water who should find employment somewhere else—perhaps running a retirement home. Will my hon. Friend apply pressure on the Department of the Environment and his Department to ensure that the reservoirs are kept as full as possible, and that a proper, sensible grid system for Yorkshire is imposed as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Page: I can tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) has been exceedingly active, both publicly and behind the scenes, in pressing the case for Yorkshire companies. I agree that perhaps the shareholders of Yorkshire Water may wish to consider other matters within the company at some time.
    I have already mentioned that £50 million-plus is being spent to ensure that the situation does not occur again in the future. I hope that that gives comfort to many Yorkshire companies.

    Lancashire Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will visit the Lancashire aerospace industry to discuss European aircraft collaboration programmes. [2607]
    Mr. Lang: I visited the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace last month, and had a useful meeting with representatives of that important industry.
    Mr. Pike: I am glad that the Secretary of State has met the consortium. He will recognise that aerospace is a crucial industry in Lancashire. Would not the Lancashire aerospace industry be helped if British Airways bought more British engines and the Airbus? Will he do everything possible to ensure that Lancashire and Britain get their fair share of work from the European fighter aircraft?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The aerospace industry is extremely important to this country. It employs some 130,000 people, and is the third largest industry in the western world. British Airways' purchasing policy is a matter for that company. Engine makers have to sell their goods in a very competitive market. I am sure that the House will be as pleased as I am with the great success that Rolls-Royce has had recently by selling its Trent engine to Singapore Airlines, in a deal worth more than £1 billion.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of my constituents and many of my colleagues representing Lancashire constituencies know only too well how much the Government have done during the past 16 years for the British aerospace industry and will continue so to do? But can he also understand that there is some concern relating to Eurofighter about the proportion of the work share, and will he, along with the Secretary of State for
    360
    Defence, continue to press his German counterparts to ensure that the British aerospace industry gets the right share for the number that it has purchased?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. The United Kingdom has a good record of collaboration with other countries on aircraft projects of various kinds, starting from Concorde and going through Airbus, Tornado and others. It will be our purpose to ensure that there is a fully justifiable level of British participation in the componency of the Eurofighter.
    Mr. Barry Jones: With regard to Airbus, when will the Government formally rejoin the future large aircraft project? Why cannot the Government persuade British Airways to buy Airbus? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that answers to those questions will be carefully scrutinised by 2,000 of my constituents who work for British Aerospace? It is our greatest industry. Will the Government back it?
    Mr. Lang: The Government have extensively backed the industry. As I said earlier, British Airways' purchasing policy is a matter for that company. Airbus is an extremely successful initiative. The 500th A320 was delivered last January and last year Airbus received more orders than Boeing. With regard to the FLA, the United Kingdom will rejoin that programme once certain conditions have been met, in particular the condition that the programme will be managed on a commercial basis.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important aerospace project in Lancashire is Eurofighter? Does he further agree that the Opposition's defence policies would almost certainly mean that that project would be cancelled, and the industrial consequences to the county of Lancashire would be horrible?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Eurofighter is important not only for our defences but for our aerospace industry, and in both respects the Government's commitment to it is, I think, welcome.

    Nuclear Privatisation
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to bring the date for privatisation of the nuclear industry forward. [2608]
    Mr. Lang: The privatisation of the nuclear industry remains on track for the summer of 1996.
    Mr. Clapham: I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is not bringing forward the date of privatisation of the nuclear industry. However, is he aware that the proposed two nuclear companies will provide 24 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity and that that will all be base load electricity which will be bid into the pool at zero? Therefore, those companies will be in an advantageous position if they are allowed to diversify into gas. If they do diversify into gas, their gas units will compete not with their nuclear capacity but with other gas units and other coal units, possibly pushing coal further down the grid. In such a situation, will the Minister ensure that there are restrictions on the new nuclear companies to provide only nuclear generation, or will they be free to distort the energy economy?
    Mr. Lang: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. This is a competitive industry

    361
    and it is important that, both domestically and industrially, electricity is supplied at the most competitive price available.
    Dr. Michael Clark: While we are discussing the nuclear industry and privatisation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the significant contribution of the late John Collier, latterly chairman of Nuclear Electric, and his significant contribution during many years to the nuclear industry in general and the privatisation of that industry in particular?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the late John Collier, who served Nuclear Electric with great distinction and who worked extremely positively towards the nuclear privatisation and the successful future of that industry to which we all look forward. He will be sadly missed.
    Mr. Hardy: What public liabilities will continue after privatisation of the nuclear industry?
    Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Magnox liabilities will be retained with the Magnox stations, and the other liabilities will pass into the private sector with the nuclear stations.

    Heavy Electrical Product Exports
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated annual value of heavy electrical product exports; and what are the principal markets. [2609]
    Mr. Nelson: Exports of heavy electrical products, comprising electrical equipment for power generation, transmission and distribution, were £130 million in 1994—up 47 per cent. on 1990. The principal markets are the United States of America and the far east.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely encouraging reply. Clearly, British manufacturing industry is in good heart and very successful at selling abroad. Is my hon. Friend aware that GEC Alsthom in Rugby produces probably the finest heavy generating sets in the world? Will he join me in congratulating the management and work force on their exemplary record? Does he agree that the success of GEC has contributed a great deal to the splendid figures that he has just announced?
    Mr. Nelson: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in the congratulations he gives GEC Alsthom. It is a great success story. I know that my hon. Friend visited the plant in his constituency recently, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy. GEC Alsthom and other companies involved in power generation and transmission, such as Rolls-Royce and Davy, represent one of the great British success stories. We very much hope that it will continue.
    Mr. Bell: We of course welcome the fact that exports of heavy electrical goods have increased to £130 million. That is good news for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Why is the Minister so complacent when, for every £100 we export, we import £110 and our manufacturing exports have been less than our imports every year since 1983? The French have an export surplus of £7 billion; we have a deficit of £11.4 billion as of August, and confidence in our
    362
    exporters is at its lowest level since August 1993. That is not according to those on the Labour Front Bench but according to the Confederation of British Industry. Is it not a matter of perception and reality—the perception of the Government and the reality of our exporters?
    Mr. Nelson: This Minister is not at all complacent about our export performance. I want Britain to be in the black on the visible account and the invisible account. I was simply pointing out a great success on which the House should be united, instead of constantly listening to the dreary litany of failures to which the Opposition would spuriously draw attention. That particular sector is leading the country in record exports. Last year, we had a substantial surplus of £8.9 billion, not just on the visible account but on the invisible account. We are making more money than we are spending on the capital account and in returns on our investments abroad. It is good news for Britain. Let us hear a little more of it from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend redouble the efforts, which are already extremely well appreciated by industry, to ensure that our exports are sold abroad, particularly in China, Nepal and Indonesia? Does he understand that it is important for the Government to give British industry that support, to counteract the negative vibes from the Labour party?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is important to support, advise and enable those companies to succeed abroad. We endeavour to do that through a range of support services, including domestic policies that enable them to expand investment in their own markets. Through assistance such as the overseas projects fund, we endeavour to help them with pump-priming to get the business in the first place.
    In the United Kingdom, we have to export for our lives. That is not a party political statement but a statement of the obvious in truth and determination. The fact that we are exporting at record levels owes something to the economic and industrial policies pursued by the Government, but it is absolutely key that, if we are to retain employment at home and the prosperity that goes with it, we have to be big exporters, and our great companies have to lead the way.

    Chinese Bicycles
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effects in the United Kingdom of the dumping of cycles made by China; what actions have been taken to prevent this; and what assessment he has made of how effective the measures have been. [2610]
    Mr. Oppenheim: The European Community imposed anti-dumping duties on Chinese bicycles on 5 March 1993, since when imports have fallen by 97 per cent.
    Mr. Simpson: Has the Minister even understood the letter sent to him by the chief executive of Raleigh in my constituency on 10 November, in which he detailed criticisms of the Government's policies that have assisted the Chinese in dumping bikes in this country as a result of concessionary rates of duty? The Government have colluded with the Chinese in avoiding duties by importing

    363
    bikes through third countries. Britain has been made the laughing stock of Europe by becoming known as the dodgy dealers' route into the European Union.
    The Government have assisted in the process of duty evasion by allowing up to 800,000 Chinese cycles to come into Britain and the rest of Europe in kit form without any duties being payable. They have now grant-aided a Chinese firm to assemble the duty-free kits, after which the bikes will be sold within the British market. Is this yet another example of the Government peddling rubbish in its industrial policies?
    Mr. Oppenheim: It may be a tribute to the rightward lurch of new Labour that yesterday, when I had the pleasure of debating against the hon. Gentleman at the university of London Labour club, I had the uncanny feeling that most members of the audience were closer to my position than to his.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the EC has some of the most draconian anti-dumping regulations in the developed world. Raleigh has already massively benefited from reduced sales of Chinese bikes. We have also to consider jobs that are created by companies which invest in Britain, the interests of bike retailers and the interests of those who buy bikes, who suffer poorer choice and higher prices as a result of any protectionist duties.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the cycles that the United Kingdom does not need dumped on it is the inevitable downturn in the economic cycle that would flow from the imposition of the social chapter and a minimum wage? Does he—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must ask specific and relevant questions. The hon. and learned Member cannot get away with that supplementary question. We shall move on.

    British Airways
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has made to British Airways following its decision to purchase the General Electric GE90 engine. [2611]
    Mr. Page: None.
    Mr. Spellar: Is it not remarkable that there is a major order for aero-engines and the Department is not even making representations to British Airways? Should the Department not be saying to BA that, if it wants to fly the flag on its tail, it should fly the flag on its engines?
    Mr. Page: Naturally, I wish every company to buy British. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that old Labour is alive and well and itching to intervene.
    I do not have the confidence of the hon. Gentleman to run British Airways better than those who have spent a lifetime in it. The House might be interested to know that, since privatisation, BA has given £476 million in corporation tax to the Treasury. It has 53,000 employees now as opposed to 40,000. It now carries about 35 million passengers as opposed to 20 million. I do not think that I will second-guess BA's management.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Italians are constantly giving such orders to Alitalia, as are the Portuguese to TAP and the French to Air France?
    364
    Does he realise that all these airlines are huge burdens on national economies and that tax moneys are going into them instead of being directed into education and health, as they are in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes a self-sustaining point that I can only endorse. I can only stress the huge success of privatisation and the contributions that have been made to the Treasury. It is interesting to note that, despite everything we hear from the Opposition, they have no intention of reversing any of the privatisations.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on the British steel industry if Irish Steel Ltd. is allowed by the European Council of Ministers to increase its output; and if he will make a statement. [2612]
    Mr. Lang: Any impact on the British steel industry of an increase in output by Irish Steel Ltd. would depend on the size of that increase, the type of products and where they were sold. The Government are determined that any decision to allow state aid for Irish Steel should not result in job losses in the UK.
    Mr. McAvoy: The question remains how the President of the Board of Trade can actually deliver on that answer, because, bearing in mind the damage caused to the British steel industry by his Government and the European Union, is it not ridiculous that the European Union is considering a £27 million subsidy to the Irish Steel company? Will he give a categorical assurance that that subsidy will be vetoed by the British Minister at the Council of Ministers, and that he will stand up for British jobs?
    Mr. Lang: I recall how hard the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues pressed me and my predecessor as Secretary of State to increase subsidies to the steel industry in this country. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me how we shall deliver. Article 4(c) of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty prohibits all state aids to EC steel producers. We cannot contemplate a situation in which jobs in Britain should be lost in order to save jobs in Ireland.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on manufacturing industry. [2613]
    Mr. Oppenheim: While manufacturing output fell between 1974 and 1979, it has risen by 12 per cent. since 1979 and grew by more than 4 per cent. last year. The reputation of British manufacturing industry with regard to quality and delivery has improved beyond recognition over the past 16 years.
    Mr. Winterton: May I, as chairman of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance Ltd., tell my hon. Friend that, in the absence of any progress in further capital allowances for industry, and in the absence of pegging business rates, if our manufacturing industry—which is the only source of on-going, sustainable, non-inflationary economic growth—is to survive, reductions in interest rates are vital so that we

    365
    can invest in new technology and equipment? That is essential if we are to remain competitive. If the Governor of the Bank of England is in any way obstructing the Chancellor of the Exchequer and preventing him from reducing interest rates, will the Department of Trade and Industry recommend that he receives his P45 and gets his marching orders?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Although I agree with parts of what my hon. Friend just said, I would not dream of second-guessing my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Investment has risen six times as fast under the Conservative Government as under Labour, and there is one big difference with the investment now. Investment in Britain goes into high-quality, sustainable businesses, in contrast to the heroic days of Labour's industrial strategy, when huge chunks of Britain's investment were directed into dossed-out, low-grade, poor-quality industries, at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats.
    Mr. Purchase: Does the Minister recognise that the words of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) found great sympathy with Opposition Members, as many people earned their livings for most of their lives in the manufacturing industry? Was it not a revelation to hear the voice of the old Tories when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rose earlier and advocated firmly the hands-off, laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost approach to that industry—the very attitude that the Engineering Employers Federation called unhelpful, and went on to ask the then President of the Board of Trade to be the champion for manufacturing? Is it not time that we had a manufacturing champion in the current President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, because it is indicative of the rightward lurch of Labour that we had a Labour Member urging free markets in steel. That would not have happened 10 years ago, but Opposition Members have seen the success of Government policies in manufacturing. Since 1980, Britain's manufacturing productivity growth has been the fastest of all the industrial nations. In the 1970s, under Labour, it was the slowest, and those were the proud days of Labour's industrial strategy, when British Steel was the world's largest loss maker and British Leyland was the butt of international jokes.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the massive investment in our manufacturing industry in Yorkshire in the past 10 years? In fact, in my constituency of Batley and Spen, some £200 million has gone into new technology, jobs and factories. Will he take the opportunity to congratulate all those who have had the entrepreneurial spirit to put that money into manufacturing and into the future of this country?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I endorse all that my hon. Friend has said. I also applaud her role in encouraging industry in her part of the world. It is becoming increasingly clear that—in contrast to the position in the 1970s—British manufacturing industry is a success story. We in Britain are now known for producing quality goods, delivered reliably and on time. That contrasts starkly with what happened when the lot opposite were in power.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister appreciate that, in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen
    366
    (Mr. McAvoy) advocates a free market in steel, he misunderstands the true position? What is proposed in return for a huge European subsidy is an increased capacity on the part of the new owners of the plant, ISPAT. It proposes almost a doubling of capacity.
    We are being asked to give a subsidy not in return for closure or a reduction in capacity but in return for an increase in capacity that will damage British Steel and jobs in Britain, particularly in my constituency. Does the Minister understand that, and will he guarantee—as his Secretary of State seems to be doing—that he will use his veto to protect our industry and provide a level playing field?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is marvellous to hear a Labour Member speak so cogently in favour of free and open markets, and against subsidies. It is notable that, in the old days, when subsidies were poured into British Steel, the company was a massive loss maker. Since then, its position in the world has improved enormously: it is now the world's fourth largest steel maker. It is highly successful, exporting 40 per cent. of its production. That is due to the less hands-on, more free market policies implemented by the Government.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I was born in Macclesfield, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to join me in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his work and advocacy. He is right to contrast the recent growth of exports and investment with what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, and—if I may say so—in the first half of the 1980s. But will my hon. Friend and his colleagues concentrate on enabling smaller manufacturing businesses—I have corresponded with his Department on this matter twice recently—to be fully aware of the sources of advice and assistance that the Department and other agencies provide? Many are not aware of those sources.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend's points are entirely fair, but it is also fair to say that the growing business links network will play an important part in that.
    Dr. Howells: The Minister will recognise the enormously valuable role in investment and export earnings that is played by our pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries, but is he aware that those industries are in danger of losing markets as a result of the hawking of cheap copies of their medicines around Europe by companies based in Spain, where there is a complete lack of patent protection law?
    Given that the process of developing a new medicine typically takes between eight and 10 years and costs £300 million, does the Minister accept the urgency of exerting pressure on the European Commission to ensure fair competition and to protect the patent rights of our pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the success of the United Kingdom's chemical and pharmaceutical industry. I believe that it is now the world's biggest exporter, which is a great tribute to the work done by management and all who work in the industry, at every level.

    367
    I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, negotiations are currently proceeding in Europe. The Government will take account of the interests of what is a fine example of British manufacturing, as well as the interests of consumers.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the economic fundamentals that we have pursued—low taxation, low inflation and low interest rates—have enabled British manufacturing industry to increase its investment by 11 per cent. over the past year? That is a huge figure. Indeed, the figure for plant and equipment was 14.5 per cent. Does my hon. Friend accept that, if Labour were ever to have a chance of gaining power, those fundamental rates would have to be increased to finance its spending plans? Would that not cause tremendous damage to the prospects of manufacturing investment?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. In the third quarter, manufacturing investment was up by over 12 per cent., and investment in plant and machinery was up by 18 per cent. British industry has undergone a productivity revolution over the past 16 years. We have closed three quarters of the productivity and competitiveness gap with Germany. That, not the minimum wage, is the best way in which to ensure good-quality, well-paid, secure jobs for our people in the future.

    North Western Electricity Board
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had on behalf of consumers about the North West Water bid for Norweb from the National Consumer Council. [2615]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: One such representation was received. The chairman of the National Consumer Council wrote to my right hon. Friend about the proposed merger on 13 September. She wrote in similar terms to the Director General of Fair Trading, who took account of the NCC's views in his advice to my right hon. Friend on the matter.
    Mr. Rooney: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will of course be aware that the Office of Water Services is holding an inquiry into claims that North West Water, along with others, has charged for improvements that have not been carried out. In view of those extremely dubious management practices, what guarantees can he give to consumers in future?
    Mr. Taylor: I am not sure about the dubious practices to which the hon. Gentleman refers. What I am clear about is that the privatised utilities have been a gigantic success. They have been more successful than projected and have done well. That is a matter for congratulation. They have proved, if it ever needed proving, that the best interests of shareholders and of consumers are not mutually exclusive.

    Unfair Competition
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases of unfair competition have been reported by United Kingdom companies to the European Commission in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [2616]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I understand from the European Commission that, between 1 January 1992 and 1 January
    368
    1995, it received 260 complaints from the United Kingdom of unfair competition under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of a complaint of unfair trading against a company employing disabled workers, and will he discuss with his colleagues how to avoid the risk of any further such charges arising?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, I will. In connection with the case of which my hon. Friend is aware, I should like him to know that the Government have demonstrated to the European Commission that the assistance that they give to disabled people or to Remploy in particular is not state aid in the context of competition policy.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister accept that Shelton steelworks in Stoke-on-Trent is the most profitable and efficient rolling-mill in Britain and in the European Community, and that it is directly threatened by unfair competition and subsidies proposed by the European Commission in support of Irish steel? Does he understand that British Steel has identified directly the threat to Shelton steelworks as a result of that deal? Will he now give a firm commitment that the British Government in no circumstances will allow that deal to go ahead?
    Mr. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said earlier this afternoon during questions.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the President of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry. [2619]
    Mr. Lang: Other Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and I regularly meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss a range of issues.
    Sir David Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a major objective of Government policy is to prevent wild fluctuations in the exchange rate, as both upward and downward movements are especially detrimental to the manufacturing sector? Will he discuss that matter with the president of the CBI in the near future?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, we are conscious of the effect that such fluctuations can have on manufacturing industry. However, my hon. Friend will have heard the points made earlier in support of the great successes of manufacturing industry in recent years. Employment in that industry has risen by 28,000 in the past year alone. In the past two years, investment in manufacturing has risen by no less than 20 per cent. That is a sign of a flourishing and successful manufacturing industry, something that was never experienced during the Labour party's period in government.
    Mr. Sheerman: The President of the Board of Trade and his team today have been extraordinarily pleased with themselves and terribly complacent. Why is it that, after 16 years of Conservative government, only 2 per cent. of British manufacturing enterprises are rated as world-class?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are not complacent but proud of what has been achieved by

    369
    our manufacturing industry in Britain in recent years. The Labour party is always ready to talk about the disappearance of this country's manufacturing sector. The fact is that manufacturing output is higher now than ever before. That is a measure of the progress that has been achieved in recent years.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend discuss with the president of the CBI the impact of the minimum wage and of the social chapter on on-costs in this country's industry, and how it would affect our at present successful export business, which exports mainly to the world's growing economies?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only way our manufacturing industry will continue to survive and prosper is if we remain globally competitive. That is a measure of our achievements in recent years. The imposition of a national minimum wage would make our industry much less competitive. The CBI estimates that it would impose a burden of £4.5 billion on our industry. If only half the differentials were restored above a £4 minimum wage, it would cost about 900,000 jobs in this country. I am quite sure that a national minimum wage would be greatly to the detriment of employment and prosperity in the United Kingdom.

    Trade (India)
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with India. [2621]
    Mr. Nelson: Trade with India has increased by some 50 per cent. in both directions in the past three years. United Kingdom exports to India amounted to £1.5 billion in the 12 months to the end of September this year. UK imports from India in the same period amounted to £1.3 billion. The Indo-British partnership—set up following the Prime Minister's visit to India in 1993—has contributed greatly to the strengthening of trade relations between the UK and India.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the major expansion in the telecommunications network in India offers exciting prospects for British exporters? Will he encourage his hon. Friends to do all that they can to back British industry in winning exports there, and will he also encourage his Ministers to emulate the excellent example of the Minister for Science and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who is to visit India tonight to promote British interests?
    Mr. Nelson: The answer is yes, yes, yes. As my hon. Friend knows, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is being dispatched to India this very night to do just that. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers are into India. It was my first port of call on my appointment. As I have said, my hon. Friend is going there tonight. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will visit India early next year, and they will both do exactly what my hon. Friend asks.

Fuel Bills (Elderly People)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the urgent need for a different arrangement to assist the elderly in need with their fuel bills during the present very cold weather."
The matter is certainly specific, because of the present very cold weather all over the country. I submit that it is important, because of the immense difficulties faced by pensioners in particular in keeping their homes adequately heated because of the lack of money.
Under the social fund cold weather payments scheme, it has to be freezing for seven consecutive days and nights—seven days and nights—before the trigger mechanism applies. That is quite wrong, because this week it could be freezing for three or four days, as it is now outside, but if the weather changes, not an extra penny will be paid. That is why the scheme is a mockery.
There are no fewer than 59 weather stations all deciding whether, in their respective areas, the trigger mechanism should apply. I understand that in not one of the areas of those 59 stations has the trigger point been reached, despite the present cold, harsh weather.
It is disgraceful that, in a developed country such as ours, the elderly poor have to put their health at considerable risk—the risk of hypothermia and other dangers—simply because they are unable to pay their fuel bills. They are frightened; despite all the warnings by Ministers and the medical profession, they do not turn on the heat properly, because they lack the money to pay the quarterly bills.
Fifteen to 20 per cent. more elderly people die in Britain during the winter months than at any other time. The figure is higher than that in any other European country. In most such countries, which have harsher winters than ours, the figure is about 5 per cent.
Surely that demonstrates the immense hardship, misery and deprivation that so many elderly poor people have to suffer during the sort of cold weather that we are now experiencing. How they would like to be in the warmth of the House of Commons. I believe that the matter calls urgently for a debate.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot summit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you please give me some guidance on a very important matter? Are you aware that, under the Nolan rules, no Member of Parliament may raise in a debate anything that they have learnt on a fact-finding mission to an overseas country that has been hosted by that country's Government? As things stand, it would be deemed to be advocacy, even if the Member of Parliament had no contract with the country concerned. Therefore, he would be under an obligation—frankly—to stand down.
That affects all Members. We are all effectively gagged by rules that I hope will be discussed with Sir Gordon Downey. Perhaps there will then be a little sanity on this very important issue.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised a most important issue. I am very understanding of her predicament and—perhaps—that of other hon. Members on both sides of the House. At the same time, however, I must remind her that the House has given the responsibility of making detailed judgments on what is and what is not paid advocacy not to me but to the Commissioner, and, importantly of course, to the Committee on Privileges and Standards. The hon. Lady must pursue the matter there—I know that she has already had some talks with the Commissioner.
In that connection, that I hope that the usual channels will find it possible to put Committee nominations before the House very soon indeed. We have been waiting long enough for the Committee. There is much urgent work for it to do, and Members who find themselves in a similar predicament to that of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) are awaiting its recommendations. We look forward to it being established very soon.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—or it may be a point of taste. It is on whether the recently departed and dead are entitled to be quoted accurately from the Dispatch Box.
During Question Time, it may be within your recollection that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), very gracefully and very properly, from the Government Back Benches raised the question of a tribute to the late John Collier, the former chairman of Nuclear Electric. From the Dispatch Box, the Minister used the occasion—I think a little tastelessly—to point out how enthusiastic the late John Collier had been about privatisation. Those of us who were privileged to work with John Collier know that his attitude was far more complex than that. I do not think that senior Ministers should use the Dispatch Box to make party points in relation to the dead.
Madam Speaker: That is obviously a matter of opinion, and not one for me. It is about the way in which all of us interpret such issues.
Sir Irvine Patnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, I raised with you in writing what occurred last night. Opposition Whips were standing shoulder to shoulder at the No Lobby, stopping Members of Parliament from exercising their right to vote in that Lobby. This bully-boy tactic—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Member.
Sir Irvine Patnick: This bully-boy tactic is not in keeping with the House of Commons, or with page 399 of "Erskine May". Speaking as a former Whip, although I have been intimidated by some of the former Opposition Whips—not the present crop—I have never known Whips, including a lady Whip, to stand shoulder to shoulder to stop Members of Parliament from exercising their proper duty of voting.[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of dealing with the matter—in fact, I dealt with it at the time last night. Let me say quite seriously that no hon. Member complained to me of being unable to vote. All those who wished to vote were able to do so. That is the important point.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: How do you know?
Madam Speaker: I will tell hon. Members how I know—because no complaint was made to me. As Members of Parliament complain to me if the air in this Chamber is not fresh enough for them, they would have certainly have complained to me if they could not vote—[Interruption.] Order. I have not finished yet. I stood here last night, and I saw the Opposition Whip standing by the Door. He was by no means intimidating. As a former Whip, I can tell the House that, when I wanted to keep Members out of a Division Lobby, it was a single Nelson; when I wanted them to go into a Division Lobby, it was a double Nelson—[Laughter.]
Mr. Alan Duncan: It is not funny.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance, as I take a serious view of what happened last night, as I am sure you do. Page 148 of "Erskine May" refers to the
"assaulting, insulting or menacing of any Member of this House",
which is certainly what I saw last night. In fact, "Erskine May" describes it as
"a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime".
"Erskine May" does not make it clear how that matter should be dealt with, but the fact is that last night was not the first time that I have seen such intimidation. What was done was done out of your eyesight, Madam Speaker, so that you could not see the intimidation that was taking place. I think that something should be done about that.
Madam Speaker: Last night, I drew the attention of hon. Members to the Door on my left, which was clearly open.
Mr. Duncan: That is not the Lobby.
Madam Speaker: The entrance to the Lobby is also here, and I drew—
Mr. Duncan rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to speak when I am on my feet? I drew the attention of hon. Members to the fact that this Door was open last night, that they could proceed through it, and that, if there were any problems, I would take responsibility.
374
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has raised a serious point. However, there was no violation. If there was, any hon. Member who sought to vote last night should have reported that situation to the Speaker, and it was my responsibility to ensure that that Member was able to go through the Door, which was open.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is it the same matter?
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Skinner: You have listened to two Tories.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Skinner: I was one of the 10.
Madam Speaker: Who voted?
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I saw that; I looked at the Division list this morning.
Mr. Skinner: I spent 10 minutes with a Whip before I went into the Lobby, and I almost persuaded him to go into the Lobby with me.
Madam Speaker: That is a different matter.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful for the advice that you gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) about the Commissioner and the Privileges and Standards Committee, which needs to meet to clarify rules.
I understand that, within the next day or so, the Government will make a statement about the franchises on railways. As you will know, every hon. Member is entitled to claim free rail travel, for both his business purposes and his personal purposes, to and from his constituency and this place. Therefore, we clearly have a personal financial interest in the good running of the railways.
When the statement is made, will it be in order for hon. Members to press upon the Minister how important it is to have late-night trains, especially as such a facility affects hon. Members even more than their constituents?
Madam Speaker: I am afraid that late-night trains are not a matter for me. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously. It is a matter for the Commissioner and the Committee. As I have said, it is time that the Committee was established, because there is a great deal of work waiting for it to do.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This may be a mundane point, but it affects every Member of the House. It concerns the continuing use of a corner of Palace Yard by those who are tunnelling underneath the river and God knows what else. The result is that taxis cannot see when the taxi light is on, and therefore are not coming into the Yard.
All those who frequently wish to leave the Palace of Westminster—[Laughter.] I make this point quite seriously, because right hon. and hon. Members, in their

375
daily business, have to come and go. Could not some arrangement be made so that taxi drivers would realise that taxis were needed?
Madam Speaker: I will refer the matter to the Serjeant at Arms. The hon. Gentleman's point of order recalls my earlier comments to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), that Members who could not reach the Division Lobbies last night would have certainly complained to me about it. Hon Members complain to me about the quality of air in this place, and about whether lights are flashing on and off. Members who were not able to vote last night would certainly have approached the Chair immediately to complain.

Orders of the Day

  Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.46 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is with some trepidation that I suggest that this is genuinely a non-controversial measure, but I believe that to be the case. The Bill is a small but useful piece of legislation, which relates to the functions of the Audit Commission for England and Wales. Two of the provisions also relate to the functions of the Accounts Commission, the equivalent body in Scotland.
  The three measures are as follows—to give the Audit Commission powers to work alongside the Department of Health's social services inspectorate on studies of the performance of local authority social service departments, a measure which will apply in England and Wales; to change the financial years of the two bodies, so that, instead of having a financial year which runs from 1 April every year, they will have a financial year which runs from 1 November; and to enable local authorities to publish annual information about their performance in a free newspaper. At the moment, they are only allowed to publish the information in a paid-for newspaper circulating in their areas. The last measure would apply to England, Scotland and Wales.
  The Audit Commission's main function is to arrange external audits for local authorities and health service bodies in England and Wales, a task it carries out very well. The commission has established a reputation for professionalism and independence. When the Audit Commission was set up in 1982, it was also given a specific remit to carry out studies to promote value for money in the provision of local authority services.
  Over the years, the Audit Commission has produced a number of excellent reports, such as "Tackling crime effectively" and "In the line of fire", a report dealing with the fire service. The commission has also covered social services issues, most recently in "Seen But Not Heard", about planning services for children in need and improving co-ordination between agencies on health and social services.
  Much of the Audit Commission's work is naturally of interest to the Department of Health. But as the commission at present has no power to charge the Secretary of State for its work in this field, it cannot help with studies commissioned by the Secretary of State. The Bill will enable the Audit Commission to do that, and to be paid by the Secretary of State for the work it does. We believe that it would be useful to have an independent assessment of the performance of the whole of a social services department. The assessment should cover the department's efficiency, effectiveness and economy, together with its attention to service delivery and to systems for ensuring quality.
  We think that the best way to achieve that is to bring together the complementary skills of the Audit Commission and the Department of Health's social services inspectorate. The Government are planning to

  377
  introduce a rolling programme of studies covering England and Wales, and every local authority will be covered during a five-year period.
  The second provision in the Bill—to change the financial years of the Audit Commission and the Accounts Commission—is a technical one. Both bodies organise their work programmes to run from November to October, because that is what fits in best with the annual cycling of auditing local authority and health service accounts. If the bodies line up their financial year with their operational year, it will be easier for them to budget and to plan their work. This is basically an efficiency measure. The Audit Commission would make the change during 1997 and the Accounts Commission would follow one year later, once it had dealt with the changes resulting from local government reorganisation in Scotland.
  The third provision in the Bill relates to the publication of local authority performance indicators. Performance indicators tell people the basic facts about their local authority's performance. Equally importantly, they encourage local authorities to think about the standards they are setting themselves, and their performance in meeting those standards.
  The Government wish to encourage people's interests in how their local authority performs. Public information must be readily available and easy to understand if it is to be useful. That is why we have accepted suggestions from the Audit Commission and from local government that the options for publication of performance indicators should be broadened.
  The free newspaper industry has grown substantially in recent years, and for many people it is an important source of information. Free newspapers have the advantage that they are delivered directly into people's homes, and many authorities believe that they can reach a wider audience by publishing in them. The Bill will allow them to do so.
  None of those measures can be regarded as controversial. They build on our existing policies in those areas, which centre on sound management, improving standards and promoting openness and accountability. In all cases, they will be welcomed by those most closely concerned, and I commend them to the House.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The Labour party broadly welcomes the intentions behind the Bill. We are deeply committed to having tough regulatory inspectorates to secure national standards from local authorities. That is why we would like the audit service's remit to be extended to provide for the establishment of a quality inspectorate in parallel with its investigations and reports on value for money.
  However, we also want a rigorous audit service that protects public funds and combats fraud and wrongdoing, and it is our belief that, in many places, the audit service singularly fails to carry out that task. The basic problem with the Bill is that it does not go anything like far enough. First, I shall deal with what is in the Bill; as the Minister demonstrated when he introduced it, that will not take long. Then I shall tell the House what we believe should be in it.
  378
  The Bill's first provision is to make it possible for joint studies of council social services departments to be carried out by the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health. That is a welcome proposition, but we have reservations about it, which we shall pursue in Committee.
  The Audit Commission is, at least relatively speaking, a body independent of the Government, whereas the social services inspectorate is not. It is a straightforward part of the Department of Health, controlled by Ministers, and there may therefore be conflict between an independent body and one that, ultimately, simply has to do what it is told by its ministerial bosses.
  Furthermore, the social services inspectorate does not have an especially good record in doing its current job. Several times in the past, it has investigated a council or a particular service provided by a council's social services department and has pronounced it okay; something has then gone wrong, and the inspectorate has been among the first to jump in and denounce the department that it had just given a clean bill of health.
  There are many examples, but I shall give just one. A few years ago, the social services inspectorate reviewed Kent county council's social services department, and in particular its registration and inspection unit, which was responsible for registering and inspecting private residential homes for the elderly. The inspectorate gave that unit a very clean bill of health, commending it on the way it was run and on the job it was doing.
  No sooner had that happened than there was a great scandal in Thanet, involving a residential home in which there was virtually organised granny-bashing. The social services inspectorate immediately leaped to join in the criticism of Kent county council's registration and inspection of private residential homes.
  Inspectorates should never have to take responsibility for what other people do wrong, but they must take responsibility for what they themselves do wrong. If the inspectorate gives something a clean bill of health, it has some explaining and apologising to do if anything then goes wrong. We must ensure that inspectorates behave responsibly, and do not try to shuffle off responsibility on to everybody else when things go wrong.
  I know that what is proposed in the Bill is not a set of investigations of that type, but joint studies. Nevertheless, we need to pay attention both to the status and to the generally irresponsible approach of the social services inspectorate in the past.
  The Bill also provides, as the Minister said, for councils to be allowed to publish performance indicator information in free sheets. That is obviously a sensible measure, for which people have been pressing for some time.
  There is one other item. The Bill provides for changes in the accounting year of the Audit Commission. I should like a guarantee now from the Minister that the change in the audit year will not he used by either the Department or the Audit Commission to make it impossible to compare, year on year, the growing staff numbers, costs and top salaries in the Audit Commission.
  We all know that, when businesses or other parts of the Government start changing the way in which they present financial information, it is usually to mislead and obfuscate. If the Audit Commission is to maintain its

  379
  credibility, it is crucial that its own figures are beyond reproach in presentation and content. I hope that the Minister will either get up now and give that guarantee, or that it will be given at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Curry: Without for a minute accepting the implications of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, the intention of the change is simply technical. I will ask the Audit Commission to undertake that whatever figures are produced are absolutely comparable, so that there is no question about their transparency.
  Mr. Dobson: I thank the Minister for that undertaking.
  That is all the Bill does, so it is now a question of what it should it do. All over the country, people feel that the audit service is not doing its work properly. It is not coping with the major scandals which have arisen in councils of all political persuasions. I am not making a party political point. It has not coped well with scandals in Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat councils.
  It is no good going on as we are. Not long ago, I listened to a former Environment Minister moaning on the radio about wrongdoing in Lambeth, which he was perfectly entitled to do. The interviewer then asked him what he was going to do about it, to which the former Minister replied that there was nothing he could do. There has been nothing they could do about Lambeth for a decade, or about Westminster for the past eight or nine years. There has been nothing they could do about wrongdoing in Wandsworth over the past few years, or in Brent over the past five years. "Nothing we can do about it" is no longer the answer.
  If it is a truthful answer, it shows that the present law on auditing is not up to the job, because all the scandals have occurred under the present laws—laws that were introduced by the Government. Some of the major scandals have not even been dealt a glancing blow by the audit service.
  Take the example of Lambeth council, which, until the last council election, was controlled by the Labour party. Its record was a disgrace, and what it did was damaging to the people of Lambeth. It now has a new chief executive, and, following the Appleby inquiry, and with a great deal of good will, generally speaking, from most councillors of all political persuasions, there is a commitment to sort things out. Some of that was done at the instigation of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill). Things are being turned round, but the council needs a lot of help.
  Let us consider the role of the audit service in relation to a decade or more of things going wrong in Lambeth. The audit service itself has a lot to answer for. I make no excuses for what the council did. There were financial scandals, incompetence and fraud. Most of it was committed by officials of the council or by private contractors who had relationships with the council, but it continued for over a decade, and the audit service did little about it.
  Scarcely anybody had their collar felt as a result of the audit service's activities. It produced a number of public interest reports but, once they had been produced, under the current law the council was not required to do anything in response to them.
  Under the present law, as I understand it, the Audit Commission could not step in and do anything to correct what was wrong. There were limited powers for the
  380
  Secretary of State to step in if he decided that something was wrong, but it is not clear in the current law whether the auditor or the Audit Commission can ask the Secretary of State to step in. It would be useful to know whether any approaches were ever made to Ministers. We may never know whether approaches were made, because the Government prefer to make Tory propaganda out of the problems in Lambeth, rather than promote public propriety in that borough.
  The history of what has happened in Lambeth, and the present system's incapacity to deal with what is going wrong, is one reason why we believe that substantial change is necessary. Our document on the future of local authorities, "Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities"—which is usually mocked by the Secretary of State, if he can get to the Dispatch Box and if he does not rant on about something else—is committed to toughening up the audit service, so that it can deal with precisely the sort of situation that prevailed in Lambeth. Our document is also committed to tougher practices, and to giving the audit service more power.
  All over the country, many hard-working councillors and council officials who are trying to promote public-private partnerships—which are, in theory, endorsed by the Government—find themselves obstructed at every turn by the district audit service, which ploughs through, asking them whether they have a statutory right to do this or that. While all that is happening, to the detriment of practically everybody, and at immense cost to local people and local businesses, the audit service performs poorly in picking up outright wrongdoing and fiddling, which is its primary purpose.
  In future, councils should be required to publish plans for their services each year that set out cost and quality targets for each service. At the end of the year, councils would have to explain to the local people and to the audit service if they have not met the targets.
  We suggest a new role for the audit service, if there are deplorable standards of service or things are persistehtly going deplorably wrong. Ministers cannot continue to say that there is nothing they can do. We believe that the law should be changed, so that, if the Audit Commission concludes that a service is continually and unjustifiably failing, it can require a council to prepare a plan to put things right, to set a timetable for them to be put right, to send in an advisory team to help the council to put matters right, and to check on the progress.
  If the council is still failing, and if the Audit Commission recommends it to the Secretary of State, we believe that the Secretary of State should be empowered to appoint a management team to take over the service or services that are failing, and put them right. Far too frequently, the Government's answer to abominable management services is to put the services out to tender, thus endangering the jobs of the blue collar service workers, who are in no way responsible for the mismanagement that initially led to the problem. It is the management that needs to be sorted out.
  It is not only in Lambeth that there have been persistent failures to do things properly and lawfully. Similar problems have been occurring in Brent for a long time. I shall leave it to my hon. Friends who represent that borough to spell out some of the things that have been happening there. Those improper practices have been unhampered by the audit service, because of the weakness of the present provisions in the law.

  381
  It is worth while to draw to the attention of the House the fact that, under a Government who claim to be committed to open government, there has been a scandal in Brent involving the Ad Shop, as it is called, on which a report has finally been prepared.
  I have in my hand a sheet of paper setting out the undertakings that an elected councillor in Brent must sign before they will be given a copy of that report on the scandal of what has happened to public money in Brent. It is scandalous. They must undertake that they will not disclose its contents to anyone else. They must undertake to return the document to the chief executive for disposal. They must undertake not to discuss it, reveal it or pass it on to anyone else. That is about a scandalous and corrupt misuse of public money, yet councillors who are elected to represent local people and bring people to book are expected by a Tory council to sign that disgraceful undertaking.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I have seen a copy.
  Mr. Dobson: I believe that one or two copies have got about in spite of the undertakings, because, of course, fatuous undertakings are not binding on anyone; people should remember that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We could achieve socialism with the aid of a few leaks and one or two photocopies.
  Mr. Dobson: What has happened in Wandsworth? The auditor reported that the council had acted unlawfully in relation to some of its housing duties. Nothing has happened.
  That brings me to Westminster, which is a spectacular example all of its own. It has now descended into the depths of scandal, for three reasons.
  The first scandal, which I shall return to, is the scandal of the political fraud and corruption that has been inherent in that council for a long time, and has resulted in the district auditor—we are discussing the audit service—currently investigating the misapplication of £106 million by Westminster City council.
  Secondly, there is a scandal that does not relate directly to the district audit service, but should relate to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is the grotesque scandal by which Westminster City council receives enormous sums, far above those that are received by any other comparable area, all on the basis of that preposterous idea to which the Government subscribe—that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain. No one in their right mind believes that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain.
  Mr. Skinner: The Audit Commission has never had sufficient money and resources to do the job properly, and has always attacked Labour authorities, in the main, that might spend a bit over the odds, rather than Tory authorities that spend underneath the odds. In addition, I have always believed that, since rate capping was introduced by the Tory Government, in many ways that has undermined the auditor's authority, because the Tory Government have decided on a political basis which councils should be hammered, with the result that the
  382
  Audit Commission is not able to make the proper judgment, because it is clouded by the political actions of the Government.
  Mr. Dobson: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says.
  To give some idea of the preposterous nature of the ranking by which Westminster is placed fourth in the scale of deprivation, Rotherham—which has suffered severely from steelwork closures and engineering work closures in the past few years—is 284th in that scale of deprivation, and it is obviously a preposterous and unjustifiable position. Not only members of the Labour party say that.
  Ministers claim that the list was produced independently, but it was nothing of the sort. It is produced in the Department of the Environment. Ministers have claimed that it has been accepted by the local authority associations. It has been accepted by them because they have no alternative, but they do not believe that it is right. Above all, the chief executive of Westminster—except that he has some other fancy title—has acknowledged that Westminster gets £20 million more than it is entitled to.
  Westminster gets special allowances for the number of visitors who come in each day, but it also gets in a year about £20 million from those self-same visitors by way of parking charges. For some reason, the parking charges are not offset against the extra grants the council receives because of the number of visitors. That is basically a racket. That leads to a third consequence, directly related to what the district auditor investigates.
  According to the figures on the cost of providing services in Westminster, it is the most profligate, expensive and inefficient council in Britain. For example, refuse collection costs £53 per head in Westminster. I shall compare not Westminster with St. Helens or Scunthorpe, but with Camden, which is next door and is exposed to roughly the same inflation and higher costs that are incurred in central London. Camden's refuse collection costs £24 per head of population. Westminster spends £36 per head on street cleaning—the highest in the country. Camden spends £14.42.
  Another matter of great importance is the administration of benefits. Westminster manages to pay housing benefit within 14 days to 66 per cent. of the people who apply, and that costs £226 per transaction in administrative costs. Camden, next door, manages to pay out within 14 days to 95 per cent. of the people who apply, at a cost of just £104 per transaction. Camden is 50 per cent. more efficient—at less than half the cost—than Westminster. That shows how profligate and inefficient Westminster is. All those matters concern the audit service, nationally or locally.
  But I come back to the main issue of the scandals in Westminster. Far from taking action on the scandals in Westminster—the misapplication of £106 million—the Government have done nothing. Far from condemning the wrongdoing in Westminster, the Government have done nothing.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend might recall that I was the original objector in the late 1980s to the sale of the cemeteries by Westminster, and I went to the district auditor. One matter that concerns me arising out of the affair is the way that Mr. Magill was

  383
  treated by elected councillors. Mr. Magill acted with great courage in the face of great adversity, and he was regularly insulted by councillors who obstructed him in every way. He must have been more than distressed on many occasions, but he clearly hid his distress and, one way or another, managed to produce a number of reports.
  It would be good if we could enshrine in legislation some form of protection for public servants who diligently do a job even when they are faced with the kind of attacks that Mr. Magill suffered, particularly from Lady Porter.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In particular, I commend him for the distinguished part that he has played in attempting to bring Westminster council to book. As an objector, he may know that, far from toughening up the law and strengthening the hand of objectors to prevent a recurrence of what has happened in Westminster, the Government are excluding Westminster from their investigation of the role of objectors and the functions of the audit service. The Government are studying every council and every audit service in the country except Westminster.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Bar one.
  Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend says, they are investigating all bar one. Their official report says:
  "The study will exclude Westminster City Council which has already been the subject of a separate inquiry"—
  they can say that again—
  "following objections to the council's 'designated sales policy' in relation to housing."
  That is an inadequate description. There have been objectors and objections to about another 25 items of expenditure.
  It continues:
  "The Department wishes to avoid the high profile and significant costs of this case from distorting the results of the current project, which will focus on the generality of cases.".
  I bet it will focus on the generality of cases. The last thing they want it to do is focus on what has gone wrong in Westminster when they have done nothing about it for so many years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other people who had to pay the poll tax or the council tax in Westminster raised formal objections. As I have explained, the district auditor is now investigating the wrongful misuse of more than £100 million of ordinary people's money.
  It makes every other financial scandal that has ever occurred in English local government pale into total insignificance. Such figures have never been bandied about. What happened, the length of time it continued and the obstruction by officers and elected councillors in Westminster demonstrated just how much the audit service needs to be strengthened.
  There have been five major scandals. In any other council, the other scandals would be major ones, but in Westminster there have been five major scandals. There was the "homes for votes" scandal in 1987-89. Originally, the district auditor said that it had cost £21 million. Lady Porter and her friends objected to the quantum of £21 million, and, having looked again at the matter, the district auditor agreed that £21 million was the wrong quantum, and that in fact £29 million had been lost.
  384
  The next item was the second part of the "homes for votes" scandal, between 1989 and 1994, involving losses of another £21 million. Then there was the council's failure to collect service charges and to bill many new leaseholders. It cost £13 million. Councillors knowingly did not collect service charges, because it might upset the voters. They knew that it was wrong. They were advised by their lawyers and finance officers that it was wrong, but they still persisted, and they are now being investigated.
  There was also an indemnity and abatement scheme that was intended to help leaseholders, at a cost of £18 million. The district auditor is investigating whether the council even had the power to start an indemnity and abatement scheme.
  The final scandal, which has cost a great deal of money and will cost more, was the absolutely scandalous decision to put homeless families into life-threatening, asbestos-ridden tower blocks. That was totally unjustified, and, once again, against the advice of the council officers.
  In case anybody should think that is the sum total of the scandals in Westminster, I shall whizz through the others, as they would represent enormous sums of money for any other council. There was the scandal of the property disposal of Cheylesmore house—costing £3.5 million—and the Ambrosden hostel—costing £2.5 million; a scandal involving Monck street and Bishop's Bridge road cost another £1 million; the famous cemeteries reacquisition cost £3.5 million; MRS redundancy costs when Westminster privatised some of its services were £1.5 million; and what were described as "Quality of Life initiatives" and were probably unlawful cost £5 million. Some £1.5 million of local taxpayers' money was spent on propaganda in the run-up to the 1990 election, and another £400,000 was spent on consultants. Other capital grants, which may very well be unlawful, cost another £3.5 million.
  On any other council, those would be absolutely momentous items of wrongdoing and misexpenditure, but they pale into insignificance compared with the really major scandals in Westminster.
  One of the problems is that the inquiry has been extremely protracted. That is because the inquiry has been extremely obstructed, both by those who were charged with losses and by present councillors and council officers, who are trying to protect those who have been charged.
  At one stage, the district auditor was told that some of the most important papers could not be found. They had been issued to a dozen or more people, but not one example of them could be found. The district auditor resorted to a dawn raid on some of the offices. Lo and behold, he found the papers. It was a bad mistake on the part of those who were trying to put him off, because he picked up as well many other papers that he did not know existed. I understand that the other papers were extremely illuminating, and put the council in an even worse light.
  I am told that obstruction of the sort that I have described is not an offence under current law. If it is not, it clearly should be. I cannot believe that anyone disagrees with me on that.
  It is clear also that both council members and officers have repeatedly lied to the district auditor during his investigations. It seems that, if individuals have said things that are plainly contrary to the written evidence

  385
  of what happened at meetings or to written advice—for example, people saying that they were given legal advice that they could do something and that advice, when examined, revealing that they were told that they could not do what they wanted—that should also be an offence. There may be genuine difficulty in recollecting exactly what happened, but plain lying to the auditor should be an offence.
  Enormous costs have accrued. The district auditor has had to run up an enormous bill in carrying out his work. The council is running up enormous bills in trying to obstruct him.
  The obstruction has not stopped: as recently as 21 November, the district auditor complained to the council that it was not supplying him with material on the notorious cemeteries sale. He is investigating the council's decision to bring a legal action against its previous legal advisers on the sale. It claims that it has been wrongly advised by its legal advisers.
  The decision to spend money trying to initiate a legal action against the council's previous legal advisers was against the legal advice of those advising the council when it took that decision—in other words, another lot of legal advisers. That is clearly a waste of public funds.
  In other areas, Labour councillors had been told that, if they, against the advice of council officers, turn down applications for opencast coal mining against legal advice—this turns on certain principles that have been laid down in earlier cases—they will lay themselves open to surcharge. What is sauce for the Labour goose must be sauce for the Tory gander at Westminster.
  The unique feature of the Westminster case has been the spending of public funds to mount political campaigns of vilification against the auditor, simply because he has been doing the job that Parliament gave him. The case is unique in another respect, because Members have been involved in it up to their ears from the start. That includes Cabinet Ministers, former Cabinet Ministers,*** current occupants of the Government Front Bench, Members who were on that Front Bench, and Back-Bench Members. They have all been involved as Members or councillors throughout the piece. That is one explanation why they are reluctant to criticise what has been going on.
  For instance, councillors tried to get the official press officer of Westminster to plant hostile stories against the district auditor in the news media. They made a fatuous charge, and wanted to blame the district auditor for not stopping them not collecting the service charges. The problem with that charge is that the district auditor is on record repeatedly telling them that they were breaking the law in not collecting the service charges, so it is another lie.
  It is quite clear, and it is becoming clearer, that that council knowingly moved homeless families into blocks that were known to be dangerously riddled with asbestos. The council has still produced no apologies. An independent inquiry was carried out, and a report is due to be published, but people familiar with Westminster council are becoming more and more concerned that the report may not be published.
  The Minister here today has responsibility for housing—we know that he is excluded from all other things—in Westminster as well as the rest of the country,
  386
  and this is a housing issue. I challenge him today to tell the House that he will insist on receiving a copy of the report, either as a Tory Member of Parliament or as Minister—I do not mind which—and to undertake to place it in the Library of the House, so that this wrongdoing and the official inquiry into it is not hidden away. I will give way if he is willing to get up and give that undertaking, but I can see that he is not giving any sign that he will do so—the usual thing.
  It is a matter for the audit service and the Audit Commission, but I also think that it is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission, the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have therefore written today to ask the DPP, the police and the Health and Safety Executive to investigate the scandal of people who knowingly moved children, women and men into places that were known to be dangerously contaminated with asbestos.
  It is my view that, before the asbestos scandal arose, Westminster had dragged London politics into the gutter. It has now got it down into the septic tank. There is no excuse for anyone knowingly endangering the lives of other people's families. That is what it did.
  Anyone with a degree of fairness would accept from what I have spelt out very briefly about all the scandals that have happened in Westminster in recent times that there is clearly something wrong with an audit service that cannot get a grip on this, deal with it quickly and get these people sorted out. That is why we are determined, as soon as there is a Labour Government, to strengthen the powers and practices of the audit service to sort out the fraudulent, to get rid of the wrongdoers, and to ensure that scandals are not allowed to drag on for decades, as they have been.
  That is why we consider the Bill inadequate, and that is why my hon. Friends will be tabling amendments in Committee to strengthen it substantially. At the moment, it is a useful but trivial measure. We cannot make do with trivial measures. There are important matters that need to be sorted out.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) started his speech by saying that he did not want to be party political, and recognised that Labour as well as Conservative councils were guilty of fraud, corruption and inefficiency, but he then spent almost his entire speech criticising pretty well the only Conservative council that has had difficulties in recent times.
  Mr. Boateng: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the appalling abuses of power that have occurred in the London borough of Brent, bringing local government generally into disrepute? To pretend that Westminster is the only borough affected by scandal is to live in cloud cuckoo land. Brent is certainly among those boroughs, and so is Wandsworth.
  Mr. Smith: There is, however, a much longer list of Labour councils that have been guilty of fraud, dishonesty, corruption and gross inefficiency. If we were a little more objective, we might recognise the existence of faults and difficulties in councils of all complexions. We should be concerned with trying to establish a system that will get to grips with those problems.

  387
  I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about that, but I do not agree with his contention that the Audit Commission, or the district audit service, has been at fault. I think that, when the investigation into the current series of scandals has been completed, we shall need to establish what is wrong with the system, but I think that the present system and the present law are inadequate. The hon. Gentleman recognised that. The present system is not based on the Local Government Finance Act 1982; it predates that considerably. I believe that the right of objection to local authority accounts goes back to the last century, and I doubt that the present system is capable of dealing with the complexity of inquiries such as the one that is going on now.
  Local government expenditure accounts for 25 per cent. of all public spending, so large sums are involved. We shall need to examine all aspects of these matters. For example, I think it wrong that the district audit service can—as it did in Westminster—reach a preliminary conclusion, and effectively find councillors guilty before they have an opportunity to put their side of the case.
  Mr. Dobson: That is not true.
  Mr. Smith: It is true.
  Mr. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, before the district auditor reached his preliminary conclusion, he had innumerable meetings with those whom he subsequently accused of wasting money? They were heard, at enormous length—when they finally turned up in Britain to be heard.
  Mr. Smith: I was aware of that, but I still consider the present arrangements inadequate. The findings were preliminary, but they were presented in a way that suggested that those councillors were guilty, period. The system is not satisfactory. A much more satisfactory system operates in relation to inquiries into companies: independent inspectors are appointed to whom, under the Maxwell rules, the case against those involved must be put on more than one occasion. It may not be appropriate to transfer that system in its entirety to local authorities; I am merely saying that I believe that the system requires thorough examination to establish what changes need to be made.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras did not seem to recognise the existence of a constitutional difficulty in relation to the independence, or autonomy, of local authorities. He advanced a series of proposals that might compromise that independence considerably. As it happens, I agree with what he said about the independence of the Audit Commission and the district auditor. It is important that that independence is preserved, and is not compromised by the provisions in the Bill which concern the social services inspectorate.
  The fact that the Bill adds to the Audit Commission's obligations and duties is recognition of the fact that, since its establishment in 1982, the commission has done an extremely effective job. The district audit service has always conducted a regularity audit of local government accounts; it is the addition of a "value for money" element that has been so important. In 1982, for the first time, the Audit Commission was obliged to conduct value-for-money studies of local councils. It has done an enormous amount of good work and contributed substantially to the improvement in the quality of local government services.
  388
  In 1990, the health service was added to that. That was clear recognition by the Government that the Audit Commission had been doing valuable work in local government. Now the commission does a great deal of useful work in the national health service, examining what can be done to improve value for money, to establish performance indicators between one part of the service and another and between one hospital and another.
  I pay tribute to the work of the first two Audit Commission controllers, Sir John Banham and his successor Howard Davies, both of whom went on to become director general of the Confederation of British Industry and both of whom came from Mckinsey and adopted a Mckinsey-type approach to the commission's management. That was important because the commission has no sanctions when it comes to trying to ensure that its recommendations are implemented. It was important therefore that it should have a high profile and obtain a lot of publicity for its recommendations. It has achieved that and succeeded in putting pressure on local councils to pick up the recommendations and implement them. There is no way in which it can require local authorities to do so. It must do so by force of persuasion.
  I also pay tribute to Sir David Cooksey, who recently retired as Audit Commission chairman. His contribution to its work should not be underestimated either. Anyone who has read his valedictory report in the latest annual commission report will know that he had considerable command over the commission's work during the years that he served as its distinguished chairman.
  The commission has brought an interesting and attractive new approach to value-for-money audit in government. Until its advent, we simply had the National Audit Office, which has a different approach. It tends to consider central Government from the top downwards, whereas the Audit Commission tends to consider local government from the bottom upwards, considering what goes on in individual local authorities and drawing its conclusion from many different examples.
  I consider that to be an extremely constructive approach. It was well exemplified when, six or seven years ago, both bodies decided to investigate the management of police forces in England and Wales. The NAO concluded that yet more Home Office interference in the management of police forces was needed, that more obligations and more duties should be placed on Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and that that would ensure that the quality of management and of service to the public by local police forces improved.
  The Audit Commission, considering precisely the same questions, came to precisely the opposite conclusion, which was that there was too much interference by the Home Office and that, instead of the Home Office telling each police force precisely how many constables it could employ each year and so on, we needed to give chief constables far more management autonomy, to tell them to get on with the job and to assess their performance against whatever targets were set subsequently. That is the path that the Government chose. The law has been reformed so that police grant is paid in that way, starting from 1 April last year. As time goes on, considerable improvements in value for money will take place in local police forces. That was directly as a result of an Audit Commission recommendation.

  389
  There is a need for more co-operation between the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. There tends to be rivalry, which is fine as long as it is healthy. The Public Accounts Committee recently considered an NAO report on the Metropolitan police's response to 999 calls.
  It is anomalous that the PAC can investigate the Metropolitan police but no other police force in England and Wales simply because the Met is funded directly by the Home Office while other police forces are funded indirectly though local authorities. In this case there was some co-operation between the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. Information was obtained from the Audit Commission about the response by other police forces to 999 calls. It could have gone further. The Audit Commission could have produced a report covering all other police forces at the same time, and that could have been considered simultaneously.
  There is a question about parliamentary accountability of the Audit Commission. In an appendix to the Butler report on the commission it is stated that the commission is accountable to Parliament, and the appendix sets out various ways in which that occurs in practice. It would be a good idea for Parliament to take more interest in the commission's reports and to follow them up. We ensure that central Government is operating properly by allowing the PAC to investigate National Audit Office reports and to publish a report. The Treasury has to respond by saying what is being done to ensure that the recommendations are being implemented. In the context of the Audit Commission I am concerned that there is no similar mechanism.
  For the reasons that I gave earlier relating to the independence of local councils, it would not be easy for Parliament to start investigating council matters. But we could make a start with the health service because there is no question of comparable local accountability. The Audit Commission produces excellent reports on the NHS and the Public Accounts Committee or some other committee could consider the reports and call the chief executive of the NHS management team to give evidence. It could produce a report and could try to ensure that some of the recommendations were implemented.
  We should look at that, but before we do, perhaps the recommendations of the Nolan committee, which considered the whole question of audit, need to be followed up. I understand that the Treasury is carrying out a review in response to the Nolan committee's recommendation that arrangements for the external audit of public bodies should be reviewed with a view to applying the best practices to all. The Nolan committee seized on that point: that there is not the same automatic public scrutiny of the Audit Commission. It stated that that,
  "does seem to us to represent an anomaly."
  The committee said that it was good that there were now two audit bodies. To some extent the NAO is a sort of public monopoly, and it is beneficial to have a bit of healthy competition between the two. The committee stated:
  "We are not here recommending an extension of the NAO's role as auditor. The existence of two bodies supervising the audit of different public bodies provides a valuable creative tension which can only serve to raise standards."
  390
  I certainly agree. When the review is complete the House should consider further how it follows up audit reports, whether they relate to central Government, local government or the national health service.
  I certainly support the Bill, however modest its provisions, because it is further recognition of the Audit Commission's valuable work. That could be used to more effect by the House and by its Committees.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I apologise in advance because I fear that I shall have to speak at some length. When I learned about this debate I realised that it gave me a chance to bring together several issues that I have raised, many of them when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had the misfortune to be in the Chair. For that reason you may recognise some of the issues. Sadly, I cannot say that these matters have been resolved. I shall do my best to be brief, but hon. Members will see that I have a pile of papers about 9 in high from which I have extracted half an inch. If I were to go through my entire file on corruption in Brent council I fear that we would soon run out of time.
  It is quite opportune that this debate is taking place today because yesterday members of Brent council were able to get round the most extraordinary conditions imposed on them, as reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Of course, completely ignoring the nonsense of forbidding the council to talk to anybody else, I immediately met members of the council, asked to see the report and shall now report its conclusions to the House since every attempt is being made to prevent that from being done.
  Before I start down that route, I should like to support the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). No one is suggesting that corruption solely concerns one party. There have been corrupt Labour councillors and corrupt Labour councils. There is corruption in all parties. The issue before the House is whether we are sufficiently engaged in rooting it out, not only among our opponents but on our own side, and whether we are interested in a district auditor having the powers to be able to react much more swiftly than has been the case.
  Events surrounding occasions on which corruption has occurred—in both major parties—have tended to drag on for months. Now it is becoming the norm that they drag on for years—usually beyond the next election. The issues of corruption in Westminster between 1986 and 1990 may not be resolved until the next century. That is absolutely bizarre.
  Therefore, in all that I say about Brent council—I am restricting myself to Brent council—I do not for one minute suggest that corruption is simply and solely a problem only of the Conservative party. I went to the Metropolitan fraud squad and asked it to investigate four Labour councillors on Brent council almost a decade ago. I regret the fact that the Metropolitan fraud squad was unable to find sufficient evidence to proceed, because I had not the slightest doubt that there was a real case to answer.
  The problem with the Bill, as much as everyone welcomes it and will vote for it, is that it will not really help root out corruption. What I have discovered in

  391
  endless sessions with Price Waterhouse and Co., the current auditors for Brent council, the district auditor, who was the council's auditor until recently, the Metropolitan police fraud squad, and in other communications with the charity commissioners and everybody else, is that there is not one body with which one can raise a concern which has the whole range of powers to get in there and sort it out quickly.
  I have not the slightest doubt that corruption relating to public officials, whether councillors or Members of Parliament, and however small the sums of money, is more damaging than corruption in the private sector, because it corrupts the whole structure of government and the public perception of it. When people get away with corruption, the way is opened for people who want to get involved in politics in order to enrich themselves.
  Therefore, I would like an audit service with almost a subsidiary police department that would be able to haul such people in for some pretty grim questioning and to keep them in custody, without any right of silence or legal representation, until the issue is resolved. A much tougher standard should apply to public figures than to the general public. When one volunteers to enter public life, one should be prepared to accept and work under such a constraint.
  Given the amount of time that the Government spent investigating what went on at the Greater London council without ever finding any discrepancy or anything on which they could proceed, I make it clear that I had no objection to the work of the GLC being investigated and took considerable pride in the fact that nothing was ever produced to stain its 1981-85 administration.
  I turn to the Ad Shop and the scandal on Brent council. I have tabled two early-day motions that summarise the report. It is a vast and bulky report which, in the way that it has been presented, has attempted to intimidate councillors and therefore prevent them from raising its contents. How bizarre!
  The loss of £400,000 of public money by one small council department comes to light, and an independent police officer is appointed to investigate it. He conducts a detailed investigation and produces an enormous report—pretty much the size of a substantial English dictionary—yet it is not then given to councillors so that they can discuss it openly. Instead, the leader of council, Councillor Blackman, insists that it is dealt with in the closed session of the council meeting. He insisted that it was given to Securicor to distribute. Presumably, Securicor staff turned up with their helmets and batons in case the councillors turned nasty. Securicor was told by Councillor Blackman, "You cannot give it to the councillors until they have signed an undertaking that they will not talk about it to anybody"—including local Members of Parliament—"otherwise they will be at risk." There were all sorts of threats.
  The report is printed on bright red paper so that it cannot be photocopied. To be doubly certain, every sheet of the report, which is several inches thick, has the name of the councillor receiving it woven into the paper. Can hon. Members imagine the cost of producing a report on that basis, in an attempt to suppress debate? It will not work because the report says that the allegations about corruption are true. It says that the Ad Shop, the semi-privatised section of Brent council that placed adverts and recruited staff, managed to lose £400,000.
  392
  Why cannot the auditor investigate that? Why does Brent council have to go outside the normal audit service and, at additional expense, bring in a former police officer to investigate it?
  Councillor Buckley, who was the chair of the Brent Business Board and therefore directly responsible for the Ad Shop, had what is now called "a clear and substantial non-pecuniary interest" in respect of Ruth Jackson, the officer concerned. I understand that, in Private Eye, it is to replace the concept of "Ugandan conversations".
  The affair was reported to the chief executive—a change in local government procedure of which I was not aware. Apparently, when a councillor has an affair with a council officer it is one's duty, under the national code of conduct, to report that matter to the chief executive. The affair was reported to the chief executive in November 1993, a month after it began. Therefore, we must ask whether the chief executive told the leader of the council about the affair and whether he warned the councillor concerned that it would be unwise of him to chair meetings dealing with the particular area of council business where he had a personal involvement with a member of staff.
  Now, the district auditor is to be called in. The former police officer, Derek Owen, says that he has found £23,800 of the expenditure—out of the £400,000 that has been lost—and which has been spent on alcohol, lunches and flying the entire department to Schiphol international airport, where it hired the VIP lounge for a one-hour business meeting of the department. We can only imagine what would have happened if Lambeth council had done that. Conservative Members would have been very unhappy. Of course, there could be no justification for any council doing that. I hope that the district auditor, even with the present limited powers, will investigate the matter and, if it is necessary, issue a surcharge.
  The report shows that at every stage Councillor Buckley intervened to try to prevent the matter from coming to light. He had the support of the leader of the council, Councillor Blackman, who was complicit at every stage.
  The final devastating point is that the report concludes that the problem arose because of the drive to privatise everything without proper thought and planning. I shall directly quote the report as it is another matter that should be investigated. It is clear that it has incurred considerable losses for the council, not just the Ad Shop. The report states that the drive to privatise Brent council into 170 separate business units was flawed by
  "the failure … to implement a sound infrastructure in support of the business units from inception, coupled to an almost total lack of positive or effective monitoring"
  and that this
  "was the primary cause of the Ad Shop's demise and subsequent closure."
  I hope that, as the auditor begins his investigation, other hon. Members on both sides of the House will sign the early-day motion calling on Councillor Blackman to ensure that the matter is debated in public and that both he and Councillor Buckley do not vote on an issue for which they clearly have a direct responsibility.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I should point out that we are debating the Second Reading of a

  393
  Bill. The hon. Gentleman's comments are interesting and fascinating and while they may well have a bearing on the Bill, he has not established that for some time. Therefore, I ask him to relate his comments to the Bill.
  Mr. Livingstone: I was about to refer to the Bill when I moved on to my second item, which is the range of investigations which are currently under way. I have seen the auditor, the old district auditor, Price Waterhouse and the Metropolitan police fraud squad. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have been all over the place, and written to the charity commissioners and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, because VAT fraud is involved. At every stage, people have passed the matter on to somebody else, or said that if I had information, I should give it to somebody else.
  I would like to see amendments to the Bill—I hope that they will be tabled in Committee—which will give the audit system total power to get stuck in to these matters. I have had endless correspondence with the DPP and the police, and both have said that they have looked at different parts of the matter. But we need someone who is able to look at the totality of corrupt practices in local government and someone who has enhanced powers to deal with the problem.
  Nowhere is that more necessary than in the case of Brent council. I shall give a list of the present problems in Brent. Police investigations have taken place into Councillor Bill Duffin, former councillor Leslie Winters, former councillor Nkechi Amalu Johnson and former councillor Judith Harper. These investigations are on different matters. The ombudsman is investigating Councillor Duffin again, and Councillor David Tobert. The district auditor is investigating the council leader Councillor Blackman, and Councillors Cormach Moore—the Conservative chief whip—Alan Wall, Jack Sayers and Richard Buckley. An internal council auditor is investigating Councillors Buckley, Blackman, Wall, Moore, Sayers and Carol Shaw.
  This is nonsense. There should be one body or one individual to whom members of the public, councillors and Members of Parliament can go to make their complaints. Such an individual would be able to draw all the matters together and come to the right conclusions, because—at present—that is impossible. I estimate that I have spent an entire working week in the past 18 months in the company of Price Waterhouse, the district auditor and the fraud squad. How many members of the public can do that? How many councillors have that time?
  I have been ably assisted by two diligent councillors from Brent, Steve Crabb and John Duffy, who have spent virtually their entire time on the council digging into the files. That is not going to happen in most areas, as most people do not have that sort of time. What we have discovered in all this is an endless series of multiple and overlapping examples of corruption.
  I have referred to the case of Bill Duffin. Although the Metropolitan police fraud squad recommended prosecution to the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS—quite unwisely—decided not to proceed. Mr. Duffin was in the ridiculous position of being chair of the housing committee while working for a local landlord specialising in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Mr. Duffin took his employer to meet officials without revealing who he was.
  394
  He did so to try to find out ways in which his employer could increase his take on housing benefit, a matter of immediate concern to the Government who are concerned about current housing benefit bills.
  Fortunately, when the matter came to light—and despite the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed against him—Mr. Duffin was removed from his position by the whole council. Individual Conservative councillors, to whom I pay my respects, voted to remove one of their colleagues because they felt that corruption had been sufficiently proved.
  The most serious example of what has been going on—I know that you will remember it from some Adjournment debates on the subject, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the Irish centre. This is the most distressing case, and the case on which I spent virtually all of my working week spread over 18 months with the auditors and the fraud squad. I was desperately trying to push everyone in the same direction so that we could reach a conclusion.
  The simple facts of the case are that a council grant of £231,000 was paid for building works to be done at the centre. Not all the works were done, and not all the money was spent. Three councillors—Councillors Wall, Moore and Sayers, to whom I have referred—sat on the management committee of the Irish centre. They were present when it was decided not to proceed with spending the grant for the purposes for which it was given—namely, to provide access for disabled persons and changing rooms for actors, singers and dancers. Instead, it was decided to spend the money on building a bigger bar.
  Those councillors felt no need to report that to the council. Instead they sat there and decided all sorts of other peculiar things. Although they were in receipt of public money they decided not to have a contract with a regular recognised builder, but to do a great big "on the lump" job, with people turning out day by day and being paid cash in hand without any real records or other checks.
  I wrote to the leader, Councillor Blackman, asking what he intended to do about that, but I have never had a reply. Rather than trying to sort out what had been going on, Councillor Blackman had been trying to secure political support, and was prepared to pay out council tax payers' money for that purpose.
  I have written to the present district auditor, and things are slowly trundling on. But we are talking about events that happened in 1992, 1993 and 1994, and I am still not in the happy position of being able to see a district auditor's report, because it is still being worked on.
  Things are not yet as bad as in Westminster, which is the most serious case, but they are bad enough. We want a new set of powers to enable district auditors not only to proceed on such issues, but to move speedily, so that their investigations do not become almost historic. By the time the situation in Westminster involving Lady Porter is sorted out, she may well have died, in view of the length of time that it is taking. I see Conservative Members chuckling at that idea. Perhaps they are not fans of Lady Porter any more—although at the time they could not get enough of seeing her and advocating her cause.
  What concerns me most is the length of time involved. Where there is a suspicion of fraud the issue should be resolved rapidly, so that even if the police decide that there is no case to take to court, and there will be no prosecution, the issue is resolved so that the public can

  395
  make up their own minds. Even if there is no question of simple illegality, the issue is whether things have gone beyond the bounds of what is considered broadly acceptable.
  I shall not go through all the details, because they have been the subject of various Adjournment debates. However, the key to the issue is the fact that when people started to raise concerns about the Brent Irish centre, rather than resolve the matter, Councillor Blackman covered it all up. When members of the public wrote to him saying that there was a problem and that things were going wrong, his supporters on the management committee voted to expel the people who were raising the concerns.
  People have often come to me and said that they are unhappy about something being done by a Labour council or a Labour councillor, and my first response is to say, "Let me send the matter straight to the police. Let us call in the auditor." I do not have the resources to investigate such matters, and it seems bizarre that even with the new powers in the Bill there will be no real compulsion for a council leader to act decisively to bring matters forward. I hope that an amendment will be moved in Committee to give councillors a duty to go immediately to the appropriate authority, whether that be the auditor or the police, with any matter of concern. That duty should extend to Members of Parliament too.
  The conclusion of the sorry tale of the Brent Irish centre is that while all that was going on, the 1994 elections hove into view. Brent would be a much sought-after jewel in the crown for either party. Brent elections always bring much welcome publicity for Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House, so it tends to be fairly bitterly contested. Clearly in 1994, with a hung council, that was going to be the case.
  I have referred all the matters to the district auditor, but I am still waiting for him to resolve them. That is sad, but it is probably not his fault, but that of the present limited powers. As in Westminster, people have been tardy in agreeing to meet him, and it has been difficult to get responses from them.
  In the run-up to the local elections, Councillor Blackman met the organiser of the Brent Irish centre privately, and on 17 March 1994 he agreed to give the centre another £70,000. Part of that money was to pay for the works that the council had already paid for, but which had not been carried out. I am not aware of any other example of a council paying twice a grant to do basic works, yet nobody raised a question. I would have expected the leader of the council to say, "Haven't we paid for this already squire?" But that does not seem to have crossed Councillor Blackman's mind. His only answer was, "How much do you want, and when can you take it?"
  Another bizarre feature of the further £70,000 grant is that the application was too late. The council's cut-off date for new grant applications had passed, but an exception was made by Councillor Blackman and the deadline was overridden. What is more, when the grant was received the financial year had barely started. I often wait eight or 10 weeks for a reply from Brent council to a letter about a housing benefit case, yet here we have someone who asked for £70,000 in March and received it eight weeks later, with all the terms on which it was to be given changed without reference to a committee.
  396
  One aspect in particular depresses me, and we need to think about it in connection with the Bill. When I was in local government, as leader of the Greater London council, I could not move without a finance officer and a legal officer authorising every penny of expenditure by the council. If we wanted to spend money there had to be a report, and that report had to be seen by a lawyer. There had to be a concurrent report, and it had to have been seen by the treasurer, too.
  Yet in Brent £70,000 was paid out, and the only monitoring was that the person who received it would tell the leader of the council what had happened to it. I am amazed that that is legal, and I hope that the Labour party will propose an amendment to the Bill to make it impossible. No council money should ever be spent until there has been an authorised report to a committee. I thought that that was already the law. Clearly there has been much damaging drift in the normal checks and balances in local government.
  No sooner had Brent Irish centre received its £70,000 grant than an illegal leaflet—I have a copy of it here—was circulated in the main Irish areas of Brent saying, basically "Vote Conservative and defeat the Labour candidates". Lo and behold, the largest swing to the Conservative party anywhere in England took place in the wards where that leaflet was circulated, and control of the council hangs on the casting vote of the mayor. That was not simply a question of financial corruption, and the leader of the council bribing a community group for support. The corruption may even have determined the outcome of the election, so the case is very serious.
  That was another issue that I raised with the auditor and the police. The police were very helpful, and made a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I got back a nice letter saying that it had not been possible to identify who was actually behind it all. The DPP should have an overall report about the totality of the events, rather than the police investigating the narrow issue of who produced an illegal leaflet while the auditors investigate where the £70,000 has gone.
  There should be one overall unit. Calling it the district audit service is meaningless to the public; it should be called the anti-corruption unit—a much more popular title, which people would understand and which would clearly define its remit. If one person had been overseeing the whole matter there would have been a firmer response.
  I wrote to all the individuals concerned and raised the matter with Ministers, saying that I was worried because everybody was looking at separate little bits of the jigsaw and no one could see the influence of the Mr. Big, Councillor Blackman, who had been pulling all the strings.
  I wrote to the councillors concerned—the three councillors on the management committee and Councillor Blackman—asking them a series of detailed questions. I shall not go through them all now, because I do not want to stretch your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there were three pages containing 13 questions in all. I asked questions such as whether they remembered agreeing the expenditure, whether they remembered seeing the monitoring report, why they had not pointed out the discrepancy to council officers, and whether they had told the leader of the council. I also wrote asking the leader of the council what he had done about it all. Silence. Not a peep.

  397
  In any new powers for the district auditor we should make certain that the power of prevarication is removed from corrupt officials, Members of Parliament and councillors. I want there to be somebody who can say, "I want those people in today," and they will come in—and if they do not, the police will feel their collars and bring them in.
  The most obvious example is the delay by many members of Westminster council who wasted the district auditor's time month after month by finding reasons not to meet him. It is outrageous. We would not normally tolerate that. When people commit serious crimes, the police pick up them up and bring them in. Councillors should be grateful that they are invited in to meet the district auditor. Councillors should not have the right to negotiate about when they should meet the district auditor.
  I have a letter from the Department of the Environment raising those issues. It says:
  "Ministers have no general powers to intervene."
  I have a letter from the Treasury Chambers. Customs and Excise had discovered that a lot of money had disappeared and there were irregularities. I asked for a meeting with Customs and Excise to find out where the money had gone. The letter said that, under its rules, Customs and Excise cannot discuss individual issues. That is fair enough in protecting the ordinary taxpayer or honest business from political intervention. However, when VAT fraud by Mr. Brendan Mulkere is part of an overall pattern of corruption, it should come within the district auditor's remit, which should not be narrowly defined.
  I also have a letter from the Crown Prosecution Service about the leaflet, a copy of which I have here if anyone wishes to see it. The letter says that the CPS has decided not to proceed.
  I did not, in the first instance, write to the chairman of the Conservative party but a resident in Brent did. That resident had been aware of what was going on with the fraud on the council and wrote to a Mr. Hanley, whom I assume to be the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), on 15 March 1995 detailing £137,000 of grant that was being imaginatively recycled and a whole range of other problems. I shall not mention the constituent's name in case that person does not wish to be pestered by the media.
  The reply was a letter from Tim Rycroft, special adviser to the party chairman, dated 22 March which said:
  "Thank you for your letter of 15th March 1995 on the subject of the London Borough of Brent. The Chairman has read it with interest"—
  he did not do anything about it though—
  "and asked me to thank you for taking the trouble to send it to him.
  Since the Chairman raised the issue of waste, bureaucracy, mismanagement and corruption in Labour-controlled councils we have received a great many letters on this subject. All are passed to our Research Department who will consider how we might use the information you have given us in our campaign."
  If I get a letter from a member of the public saying that there is corruption on the local council, I do not pass it to the Labour party and say, "Get a leaflet up about this." I send it on to the police. Why did not the right hon.
  398
  Member for Richmond and Barnes pass all the allegations, which were clearly overwhelmingly about Labour councils, to the police immediately instead of holding them back for party advantage?
  The letter concludes:
  "Although our priority during this local government election campaign remains the promotion of the positive case for voting Conservative, we do intend to continue to expose the lamentable record of our political opponents in local government. Your letter will help us to do so."
  This Mr. Rycroft was not even aware that he was talking about a Conservative council. He just thought, "It's another Labour council, let's bang out a leaflet." That is a complete negation of the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes to the law to pass damaging matters that have been communicated to him immediately to the proper authority.
  Finally, I thank the House for having tolerated me. There is one last matter of interest, which I have also raised before: the role of the leader of the council, Councillor Blackman. By one of those accidental miracles that occasionally bring joy to politicians, Councillor Blackman asked if he could have a larger computer. It is right that councils should provide leaders of councils, and the leaders of the opposition groups on councils, with proper computer facilities so that they can conduct their business. No one objects to that.
  At the same time the leader of the Labour group asked if his computer could be upgraded. One weekend, council officers came in, unaware that there might be a problem, and gave Councillor Blackman a new computer. His old one was so much bigger than the Labour group leader's computer that they decided that rather than waste the taxpayer's money—and I applaud that—they would give the old computer to the leader of the Labour group. It never occurred to them that anything dodgy was happening in the council, so they did not think that there was any point in deleting the files of leader of the council before passing the computer to the leader of the Labour group.
  No one noticed anything for ages until someone touched the wrong key on the computer and a whole wad of the previous correspondence of Councillor Blackman suddenly spewed forth in great detail. I will not embarrass the Government by repeating that correspondence. Broadly, it was what you would expect: the leader of the council writing to the Secretary of State for the Environment and officials in No. 10 Downing street asking them to rig the rate support grant settlement because there might be a by-election in Brent and they did not want to lose the council. That is rather tasteless but it is not illegal, as I am the first to admit.
  What was found afterwards was much more sinister—the transcript of a private conversation that a Labour councillor had held in his own home with a member of the public who had come to see him about the corruption at the Irish centre. It is clear that the leader of the council in Brent was worried that Councillors Duffy and Crabb—the people I worked with to expose this stuff—were getting close to exposing the corruption of Brent council and his corrupt use of council funds to bribe the electorate through the £70,000 paid to the Irish centre.
  Councillor Blackman was involved—I cannot say that he originated it but he was certainly in receipt of what resulted from it—in sending someone to interview

  399
  Councillor Duffy. That person was wired up to make a clandestine recording, went to Councillor Duffy's house, had a long conversation and passed the tape recording to the leader of the council in Brent, who then no doubt used council staff to transcribe it on to his computer. Councillor Blackman then started a whispering campaign saying that Councillor Duffy might be sued about what he had said at the meeting.
  I do not know about other hon. Members, but I find it hard to believe that any hon. Member would resort to wiring up members of the public to bug conversations in the homes of opponents. It is certainly not lawful to use council resources to transcribe, circulate and use such transcriptions.
  I wrote immediately to Councillor Blackman asking for some justification. I have never had a reply. I am not normally one to invoke the Evening Standard in my defence, but it took up the matter up very well and ran a headline that stated:
  "Computer secrets land Tories in rigging row".
  That is an honest assessment of the situation.
  After a long story, the article concluded:
  "Mr. Blackman was not available for comment today."
  Nor was he the day after or any other day since. Councillor Blackman has never once explained anything relating to the grants, the bugging of Labour councillors or his attempt to suppress the debate on the Ad Shop report.
  I do not believe that corruption is a party issue. What has happened in Brent is that the corruption that people got away with in the last Labour council emboldened others to think that they could do the same. When that happens, people join the party to line their pockets. That has happened in my local party.
  A local property developer who saw what was happening in Brent joined the local Labour party, signed up all his employees as members of the local branch, took it over and got two cronies selected to stand for the council. He then employed two Conservative councillors, and perhaps even a Liberal, and got them all on the planning committee so that he controlled it. In the time that he was effectively in control of the planning committee, 100 separate planning applications which the council officers had recommended against were granted. That caused some concern in the area.
  That is why I say give us a district auditor with real powers, who can strike fear into the hearts of corrupt people in whatever party, and give him the powers so that those who abuse their public position cannot hide behind delaying techniques, such as the use of legal advice and so on, to avoid being held to account. Give the district auditor powers to seize documents and meet people immediately so that such matters can be dealt with in the financial year in which they take place, not after the books have been closed some years on down the road. Let us create an audit system with real powers which will mean that corrupt people will lie awake in their beds at night thinking that they may not get away with it.
  At present, I fear, as what has happened in Brent demonstrates, that it is all too easy for corrupt local councillors to get away with corruption because those who investigate corruption are spread over so many different departments. I hope that by the time the Bill comes back for its Third Reading, we will have created a
  400
  new national audit service with real teeth and strong police powers to get in there and sort things out a damned sight quicker than is happening at the moment.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: Hon. Members will be surprised to hear that my speech will not be about Brent but about the Bill, which contains some useful provisions and some measures that are, at the very worst, harmless. I have some concerns about the Bill that I wish to flag up. As the Minister has told us, the Bill falls into three main sections. I do not want to comment on the Bill's second section, which concerns the change to the financial year for the Audit Commission. That seems to be one of the more harmless parts of any Bill that I have seen since I was elected to the House.
  I should like to make one or two comments on the third part of the Bill before I return to its heart, the first section. I welcome the third part of the Bill, which concerns the publication of performance indicators, and the fact that local councils now have some flexibility in how they publicise them. In so far as it goes, that measure is welcome. That is a comparatively minor change, however, and does not go far enough. I say that not so much because—as might have been expected—I am concerned about the possibility of local councils publicising their performance indicators in their publications as because I am concerned about the inflexible way in which those indicators will now be publicised in free newspapers.
  The Bill allows publication in free newspapers so long as those newspapers are delivered to each dwelling in a local authority area. In some of our inner cities, in the more tightly bound urban areas, there may well be places where freebies genuinely are delivered to all the buildings and dwellings. But where a local authority has even a small area of rural countryside, freebies are unlikely to be delivered to each dwelling in that area. After all, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the publisher of a free newspaper to spend money ensuring that his newspaper reaches every little farmstead, where a paperboy may take half an hour to cycle there and back. There are many areas of the country where the distribution of freebies does not extend to every house in the area, nor is it necessary that they should do so for our purposes.
  Surely the important feature about the publication of performance indicators is that the greatest public breadth of distribution is achieved, the information provided is clear, the scope of the information is right, the information is relevant to local people, and that it is what they want to hear about. At present, we do not have a total distribution system. The problem with performance indicators being publicised only in newspapers that can be purchased is that, as is well known, not every household purchases the local newspaper. We do not have total distribution at present. Surely, we wish to enhance distribution to ensure that more dwellings—not necessarily every dwelling—receive the information. For that reason, this part of the Bill should be greeted with only a half cheer.
  The heart of the Bill is contained in its first section: the extension of the Audit Commission's remit. The Liberal Democrats do not object to the principle of a commission, which is independent of government, examining the performance of local or national government for the purposes of a genuine audit. That would be valuable, and I support much of what has been said about the

  401
  enhancement of the Audit Commission's powers. The commission is useful in helping local people to make judgments about the performance of their local authorities and in exposing corruption and general malpractice. We should enhance the commission's powers if possible as it also keeps local councillors on their toes.
  I should like to criticise some of the aspects of the commission's enhanced role which have been introduced by the changes contained in the Bill. Let me start with a few specific criticisms that worry some of our local authorities now. Over the past few years, local authorities' financial resources have been cut severely. They often have too little money to fulfil even their statutory responsibilities, let alone their discretionary responsibilities. As local authorities have so little money—largely as the result of Government cuts in the money provided—they may be unable to do what they ought to do, let alone what they would like to do. They are concerned that they may, quite unfairly, be blamed for any such failures.
  It is therefore reasonable that local authorities should, where possible, be given a right to reply to any audit criticisms that are published about them. There is a strong case to be made for any reports based on the new procedures contained in the Bill to be handed to local authorities in draft form before they are published. The authorities should have the right to comment on the reports and to publish their reply to any criticisms that they contain at the same time as they are published.
  Secondly, there is concern about over-inspection. The Government are supposedly keen on deregulation and on removing the bureaucratic controls that harm the organisations in this country. They seem to be concerned about deregulation mainly where it affects businesses, but local authorities also need to maximise their income and minimise their expenditure. There is no doubt that the inspections in local authorities which are now taking place with ever-increasing frequency take up a great amount of the time of officers, particularly middle-management officers and the management tier that has been particularly hard hit by Government cuts in local authorities.
  Thirdly, I do not yet believe that the Government have given us sufficient assurance that they understand the need for confidentiality over some of the material involve. That is particularly true in the social services sector, which contains some highly sensitive material which would be seen if an audit inspection was carried out. It is important that the confidentiality of that material should be properly safeguarded. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will give us further assurances that he recognises the importance of the issue and has considered all the difficulties that it may entail. There are some more general criticisms of the Bill that need to be aired. The central principle underpinning the concept of auditing local government is that the auditors are independent of central Government and of the governing political philosophy of the day. That condition has not been satisfactorily met, even under the present arrangements; but the Government are clearly determined to tighten their grip still further on the Audit Commission, which is one of the Bill's dangers.
  The Bill goes some way towards transforming the Audit Commission into an instrument of the centralised state, in confrontation with local government—
  402
  a significant danger. But of course we have come to expect such measures from the Conservatives. They have taken every opportunity to centralise power around their governing clique; they have undermined democracy at every turn and they have even pulled the rug from under their own Back Benchers and the House. We no longer have even Cabinet government; we have bureaucratic government through quangos—that is the Conservatives' way and they now seem to be seeking to impose an ever-more centralised bureaucracy on local authorities.
  It is interesting that the Labour party is now taking very much the same track. It also intends to bureaucratise local government in a way that might even make Conservative Members wince. The Labour party is convinced that it will soon be pulling the Whitehall strings and it finds centralised bureaucratic government all the more attractive now that it believes that it may have the pleasure of inflicting it. We all know why the Tory and Labour parties are so keen to increase central Government's control over local authorities: they are both terrified—we have seen examples of it this afternoon—of the way in which some of the councils in their control may carry out absurd policies that destroy their reputations as political parties. However, neither of those parties is prepared to set up a new democratic system for local authorities that could return real control to the local electorate and ensure that those councils were made properly accountable once again. That is what the Bill needs; it needs the local electorate to be in charge, not just the auditors.
  The problem is that sober auditing of government at any level is all very well, but in the end the only real test of the performance of government or of local councils is the judgment of local people—the judgment of the electorate, expressed through the ballot box. That judgment can be properly expressed only if we use a fair and representative voting system. That is not nowadays self-interest from the Liberal Democrat point of view. Liberal Democrats benefit from the present voting system in local elections. It is the Conservatives who have been annihilated in local government, in spite of the fact that they retain a certain share of the vote.
  I have no doubt that the over-representation of Liberal Democrat councillors at the expense of the Tories does produce better local government; nevertheless, it is unfair and reduces accountability—unfair, that is, to Tory voters.
  I am sure that local people are better judges of the performance of their local authority than the local auditor. Arming people with properly audited information can only enhance local people's judgment. However, let us have the courage to ensure that, when people cast their vote, that vote counts and makes a real difference. That is what gives people control over wayward local authorities.
  The Bill further shifts the balance of scrutiny of local authorities from local people to central Government, and that cannot be right. The Bill compromises the financial independence of the Audit Commission, and that cannot be right. The Bill changes the commission's reporting function so that it is an instrument of Ministers, destroying the arm's-length relationship that is intended to encourage impartiality, and that cannot be right. Those changes signify a fundamental shift in the role of the Audit Commission. They undermine the principle of local accountability. I do not expect many Labour or Conservative Members to give open support to that view, but they would be wise to contemplate what type of local democracy is being built.

  403
  With no written constitution, local democracy depends on Members of the House exercising restraint in seeking to consolidate their grip of local government. Local government is not meant to be convenient for the governing party of the day. It is meant to serve local people and to reflect their wishes. Auditing has a role to play in that process, but the Bill carries with it the danger that it may be used to strengthen the powers of central Government at the expense of local government, and that is something that the Liberal Democratic party, at least, will do anything that it can to prevent.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The Bill is broadly to be welcomed, and I join my hon. Friends in doing so. However, I am worried that, unamended, the Bill does not tackle the significant problems that confront us in Brent in my constituency, alongside that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), or take into account the considerable anxiety that constituents throughout the country have about the quality and probity of local government.
  In my borough, the well of local government has been poisoned by the ruling Conservative clique on the council. I very much hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, does not seek to push to one side the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East on the basis that they are purely partisan and party political. To do so would be not to do justice to the significant worries among all decent people, whatever their party, about what is going on in Brent.
  Brent is truly a scandalous borough. We need the auditors to start work in the town hall as soon as possible, with a full range of powers, but Brent is a diabolical borough—diabolical almost in the literal sense—and there are some ways in which Brent town hall has as much need of an exorcist as it does of an auditor. It is as though, like something out of a movie by John Carpenter, a fog has descended on Brent town hall, and within that place all sorts of murky goings-on and doings occur, the fallout of which descends on the hapless people who are under its auspices and who dwell in the borough and rely on services under its control.
  The stories relayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East all have a basis in fact and all are a cause of concern, but the deepest on-going public scandal in Brent is the crisis in public services that affects each and every one of my constituents.
  I shall simply outline that crisis in respect of one matter of genuine concern to all the people of Brent, South—a matter that should not be the subject of party political controversy, because, apparently, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about it. Indeed, if the Prime Minister is to be believed in relation to that subject—nursery education—it is as much a priority for the Minister and Conservative Members as it is for Labour Members, because the Prime Minister made great play of his commitment to nursery education for three and four-year-olds in speeches that he has made this year.
  However, in Brent, nursery education has been the subject of a massive continuing scandal. We are entitled to ask ourselves whether, if the Bill were in place, it would enable the citizens of Brent—those men and women worried about their children and about what happens to the nurseries that they attend—to be satisfied
  404
  that the Secretary of State has given the Audit Commission the power to end the crisis that afflicts Brent nursery education.
  The one great flaw in the Bill is the extent to which it relies on the willingness of the Secretary of State to make the referral to the Audit Commission—to make the request of the Audit Commission that is referred to in clause 1—before the Audit Commission is empowered and able to carry out the works necessary to produce a report on the condition of that aspect of social service provision. It requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied; it requires an act of will on the part of the Secretary of State for the Audit Commission to become involved.
  My constituents are worried because they have little confidence in the Secretary of State. They have little confidence in his willingness to take account of their worries when that would require a criticism of a council controlled by members of the same party. In Brent, we live with, on one hand, a Conservative Government, albeit one supposedly committed to nursery education, and, on the other, a Conservative council whose actions threaten every voluntary nursery in Brent—every voluntary nursery in my constituency—with closure as a result of the cuts that are to be imposed by the council on the voluntary sector.
  Young children are currently receiving high-quality nursery education within the voluntary sector. I received an anguished letter from a parent of a child at Stonebridge community nursery, in one of the most deprived areas of my constituency. It is so deprived that a housing action trust has been established on the local estate. Unless the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared to intervene, parents and children from that nursery are faced with a cut of some £625,000 in the budget of the 12 voluntary sector nurseries in the borough of Brent. That cut will reduce the provision from the council to zero. With a cut of more than £500,000, there is no way that the voluntary nursery sector in Brent will be able to continue. People simply are unable to afford nursery education without the commitment of the local authority to its provision.
  The council has received deputations and petitions. The Stonebridge community nursery had a tea party outside the town hall, with tuna sandwiches and orange squash—not perhaps the most appealing fare, but it tasted good on that particular occasion because the cause was a good one. Some Labour councillors turned up, but not one Tory councillor came to that tea party. Maybe the diet was not rich enough for them. Not one turned up, but those councillors know what the impact of their policies will be on voluntary nursery sector in my constituency. What they do, they do not because they do not know the consequences: what they do, they do because they are playing a nasty, political game.
  The Tories are cutting the budget of the voluntary sector, with a view to setting a council tax figure that will act as a bribe—they believe—to the electorate in Brent to return them at the next local council elections. In that, they are sorely mistaken. People are not fools, and they will not be deceived. Nevertheless, the game is being played, and it makes nonsense of the Government's commitment to nursery education.
  The citizens of Brent want to know that their interests and their children's interests will be protected by legislation that does not rely on the Secretary of State's

  405
  willingness to bring in the Audit Commission. They want legislation that creates a sufficiently robust, independent and vigorous process of audit which can highlight the sort of scandal and neglect of basic social service provision represented by that reckless budget cut. That assurance is simply not in the Bill.
  The Opposition want the people themselves to be empowered. I want those mums who brought their kids to that nursery tea party outside the town hall to know that they do not have to rely on the Secretary of State to bring in the Audit Commission, or on me to request—as I do now—the Under-Secretary to ensure that the Secretary of State intervenes in the case of the scandalous attack on nursery provision in Brent. Those mums, of their own volition as citizens and electors, should be able to bring in the Audit Commission to expose the scandal. We need the sort of robust and vigorous inquiry that the Audit Commission is capable of applying to such a crisis.
  Clause I recognizes
  "the importance of improving the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality of performance in the discharge of social services functions by local authorities."
  That is all that those parents want from nursery provision. They want efficient and effective nursery provision, and they want voluntary nurseries to be able to continue to provide high-quality nursery provision to their kids. They want the means themselves to be able to ensure that that happens.
  My plea today is for the Under-Secretary to do two things, and I hope that he will respond specifically in his reply. First, I want him to agree to meet a deputation of parents from the nursery sector in Brent, with all the Members of Parliament for the London borough of Brent—Conservative and Labour alike. At such a meeting, we could discuss the crisis in provision that affects Brent's nursery education—the threat to the funding of the voluntary sector, and also the pressure on the local authority sector. That is a simple request, and it is one to which the Minister, if there is a genuine commitment on the part of Government to nursery education, should be willing to accede.
  Many months ago at the start of this crisis, I asked the Conservative chairman of social services in Brent, Councillor Irwin Van Colle, to join a deputation to Ministers. He refused. I made that request in a totally non-partisan spirit to explore—[Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), chuckling. There are people who are willing and prepared to act in a non-partisan way. Very many parents, and workers in the voluntary sector, give their time voluntarily to provide nursery education. Their concerns should not be met by a chuckle from the Under-Secretary, the former leader of Wandsworth council.
  We know how partisan the hon. Gentleman is, and what he did to Wandsworth. We know how he traduced local government. Just because he is temporarily the Under-Secretary, he should not believe that everybody in local government—of any or all parties—behaves in the same way in which he and his cronies behaved in Wandsworth and in Westminster and the way in which we see them behave in Brent. The Tory party in certain, but not all, of its aspects has made a mockery of local
  406
  government. The reason why the Tory party is so riven and so split is that there are many good Conservatives who are sickened by what some Conservatives have done to local government. Let us have no more chuckles from the Under-Secretary. He should try to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
  That is the first thing that I ask. The second is that careful thought should be given in Committee to the need to ensure that the Audit Commission is empowered and enabled to act at the behest not just of the Secretary of State but of the council tax payers. They have a vested interest in local government and the quality of services and we should be in the business of enabling and empowering the people whom we represent. That is the business of the House and I hope that, in considering the Bill, it performs that business with the interests of the consumer of local government services at heart, rather than those of the political masters who, all too often, in town halls throughout Britain where problems have arisen have acted in a way that is quite contrary to the interests of the people whom they supposedly represent.
  5.50 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: We have had an interesting debate, which I suspect has been more wide ranging than the Government were expecting. However, it should not surprise anyone in the House that Opposition Members are concerned to find means of tackling corruption at every level wherever it may occur, in whatever party or local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, corruption and fraud undermine public service and politicians, so it is in all our interests to take whatever measures are possible to tackle them.
  Opposition Members have raised some concerns about aspects of the Bill, but on Second Reading our main concern is that the Bill misses the opportunity to tackle problems in ways for which we have been calling for many a long day. The gaps in the Bill are serious and, in Committee, we shall table amendments to address those failures.
  Clause 1, as the Minister explained, enables joint studies between the Audit Commission and social service inspectorate into individual authority's social services departments. The principle of that is to be applauded, but there are concerns about changing the role of the Audit Commission, which other hon. Members have expressed and which again we will want to explore in Committee.
  It is interesting that the Department of the Environment's press release should tell us that the clause fulfils a manifesto commitment—a rare event in this Parliament on which the Minister should be congratulated. It would be niggardly of me to fail to recognise that it is good for Ministers occasionally to fulfil a manifesto commitment. I was last in the shadow Treasury team and we spent most of our time identifying a number of manifesto commitments, particularly with regard to tax, that had been broken. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Government are at last addressing this matter, albeit that it is a small manifesto commitment.
  If such joint initiatives between the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate are to succeed, joint underlying principles need to be behind such work. Not least, client carers and the local authority need to feel ownership of the process. Unless that happens, there will

  407
  not be any real change or response to ideas generated by such an inspection. That has been a major problem with the reorganisation of the education inspectorate. The reorganisation addressed by the Bill should give the people involved a real feeling of ownership.
  The outcome of the study in which the Government are engaged should assist in focusing on effectiveness and quality as much as on economy and efficiency. That is particularly relevant when we are considering some of the newer areas of social services responsibility and some of local government's new community care responsibilities. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South said—I am not a Londoner so I may confuse bits of Brent—with regard to education, it is not just economy of the service that is important but quality of opportunity and quality of the service. If economies undermine the value and quality of the service, we shall pay the price for many years to come.
  The social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission should be able to work across the plethora of agencies involved. The role of the private and voluntary sectors in the delivery of service is important throughout local authority services. The Bill should provide much greater clarity on how that will work.
  I think that most people agree that clauses 3 and 4 are technical changes. We welcome the Minister's response earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) with regard to ensuring that the transition to a new accounting year is transparent and does not hide any problems.
  We have some concerns about clause 5, particularly those of us who live in rural areas where no newspaper covers the whole area. That is an issue that we shall take up in Committee. Again, it is dogma that is stopping the Government allowing or examining other means of ensuring that performance indicators are properly and widely distributed.
  As I say, the Bill is a lost opportunity. The Government could have confronted the legitimate public concern that there are gaps and weaknesses within the current system which mean that allegations of maladministration, corruption and serious incompetence within local authorities are either not properly investigated or are investigated only after exceptional diligence on the part of individual councils and citizens.
  When undertaking lengthy investigations, the district audit service has insufficient local resources and powers. Even when reports are written, leading councillors and officers have considerable power to prevent information from coming into the open. In that regard, I disagree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). There is a relationship between the centre and local government. It is important that we shore up and bolster local democratic accountability. That is why the Labour party has addressed in a document the importance of annual elections, of increasing the number of people who vote and of examining how local democracy can be made more effective so that local people feel that they have more influence on what is going on.
  In addition, there should be the assurance that the relationship with the Government and external organisations, such as the Audit Commission and the district auditor, is such that when local people have a legitimate complaint which has not been properly
  408
  addressed and which they do not have the power or the means to investigate, the power and the means exist for their complaints to be properly addressed.
  We have heard some shocking examples of how the system has simply failed. I have been involved in local government for many years and I have disagreed with the actions of several councils. When I was on the national executive of my own party, I was involved in making sure that any concerns in the party or in Labour-controlled local authorities were investigated and addressed. I have always taken that view.
  However, having recently become local government spokesperson, I have been shocked by the documents concerning the scandals that have been aired in the Chamber this afternoon. They reveal guile and obfuscation, and attempts to ensure that people do not find out about what is happening. Councillors have said, "Yes, I was at the meeting, I even chaired the meeting, but I did not hear the aspects that were discussed when the decision was taken to send homeless families into an asbestos-ridden property." Those scandals beggar belief.
  Ministers had access to the same documents and did nothing. It is beyond my understanding that they decided to wait. They said, "We cannot do anything, we must put it off and we shall not ask any difficult questions about why this has occurred."
  We all suffer when such scandals are allowed to continue without being brought to public account. We have seen what has happened in the House in the past year. People outside say, "If one of them is at it, they must all be at it", particularly when Ministers, who must have the right to intervene, decide not to do so.
  We believe that the district auditor, as an external, independent officer, should have the opportunity properly to investigate and pursue allegations of corruption, fraud and maladministration. The Bill gave the Government the opportunity to pursue them much more vigorously.
  We have heard examples in Westminster, in Lambeth and in Brent that do nobody any good and are a matter of shame for everyone in public life. That is why those of us who are in public life and who want high standards in public life are determined that there should be mechanisms for external independent assessment that can be followed up by action. The Government have dragged their feet and have neglected to give the Audit Commission or district auditors the power that they need.
  The stories that we have heard about Westminster councillors being supported by their local Members of Parliament in vilifying the district auditor and the Audit Commission are a disgrace. The Minister should say today that such behaviour is not acceptable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked the Minister whether he would guarantee that the report on asbestos and sending homeless families into those two contaminated blocks would be published in the House so that we could make sure that it was available for scrutiny by the electors of Westminster. The Minister did not give that assurance earlier. I hope that he will do so now because there is every indication that the council does not intend to publish that report. That in itself is a scandal, and if it is true I hope that the Government will put it right. The Minister has an opportunity to do so today.

  409
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) mentioned the lack of openness in response to two reports. The first deals with the Brent Irish centre. Brent council intends that the district auditor's report, which includes the report on the Brent Irish centre, will go to a sub-committee that about eight councillors are entitled to attend.
  In the past, Labour councillors have been refused the right to ask questions or raise issues concerning reports. They were told that they have that right only at full council meetings. The district auditor's report will go to a sub-committee on 20 December. It is clearly intended that it will disappear or nobody will notice it. Subsequently, it will have to be considered by the full council, although on past experience, because it will have been discussed by a so-called sub-committee, attempts may be made to say that the report or part of it has been agreed and therefore cannot be discussed by the full council.
  No Minister would want to uphold that position. Therefore, I seek an assurance that the Minister will say that the district auditor's report should not be considered in that way and that he will promise to do what he can to ensure that it is considered openly and can be discussed.
  The second report discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East is the subject of an external report by an ex-police officer. That report is now available, but is not intended to be made public. It will be discussed by a sub-committee, but great efforts have been made to ensure that councillors are intimidated and feel unable to discuss it, even with the people they represent. It appears that one of the main people named in the report—the chairman of the business committee—may well turn up at the meeting to defend himself, although the report makes it clear that he has a direct interest in the matter and should take no part in any discussion or decision. He has insisted, however, that the relevant part of the report be taken below the line although the advice from council officers is that it should be taken above the line. That is local government jargon for whether that part of the report is considered in secret, in closed session, or in open session. I believe that it should be taken in open session. It relates to serious allegations and concerns about the spending of public money in the borough. The electors of Brent have a right to know what has been found. They have the right to know what is set out in the report.
  I hope that the Minister will say that he believes that the report should be discussed in public and that the electors of Brent have the right to know what is contained in its findings. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to support what the Prime Minister has said about the citizens charter and the free availability of information, especially when it relates to the public sector.
  In many senses the Bill seems innocuous. In reality, however, it raises incredibly difficult problems and issues for us all in determining the probity of public office and what Parliament should do to ensure that public probity is upheld at every step of the way and that fraud and corruption are tackled seriously at every turn.
  The Government and the Minister have the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to upholding the public service and probity within it. I hope that they will begin to show this evening that they will work with us, the
  410
  Opposition, during the Bill's passage to ensure that everybody knows that we, hon. Members on both sides of the House, are determined that no one who is in public office will be colluded with or given the opportunity to wriggle, squirm or anything else. We must give the Audit Commission and district auditors every power to ensure that they are able properly to tackle any abuses.
  6.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): As everyone is aware, it is a short Bill. During the debate I suddenly recognised that it was seasonal and was turning into a Christmas tree. When a plea was attached to it for proportional representation I thought that we had reached the pits. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Durham, North-East (Ms Armstrong)—
  Ms Armstrong: Durham, North-West.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Retaliation has struck home early. I have in mind the hon. Lady's phrase "the bits of Brent".
  I was intrigued by the points made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). If we followed his suggested procedure, the auditor would be a policy maker.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) made a spectacular range of accusations. I hope and anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was notified of the accusations and the fact that his name would be mentioned. I assume that that is the position.
  Mr. Livingstone: I overlooked that and I apologise to the House. I was dealing with the letter that was read out.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I shall leave my right hon. Friend to respond to that. It is sad that the usual courtesies were overlooked in the light of the comments that have been made.
  Much has been said about quality. It forms part of the drive of local authorities and the auditor and it is reflected in the various restrictions and pressures that are applied by Government upon local authorities. I was intrigued when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked in one breath about quality and then about differences in costs for various services between Camden and Westminster.
  I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. If he checks them—I have yet to make a check—I suspect that he will find that there is a difference between collection on one side and collection and disposal on the other. If he examines quality of service, he will learn how often bin service and street cleaning goes round Westminster, especially some areas of it, compared with those services in Camden. It is a matter of paying appropriately for quality.
  Mr. Dobson: The figures that I quoted were from the indicators of performance published by the Audit Commission. The Minister should not question them. If he has other figures, they cannot be right, or else the Audit Commission is wrong.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows a lack of understanding. There is a difference between collection and collection and disposal.

  411
  Some constructive points have been made. Two of them were introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and reiterated by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West. They were related to the distribution of a newspaper. There is a reference in the Bill to "all reasonable steps". That is one of the provisions that we may have to consider in Committee.
  The district auditor system, which is an attachment, as it were, that provides rations to the Audit Commission, the police, the fraud squad and the monitoring officer, has had considerable success in reducing corruption, improving quality and bringing some of the malcontents or difficult people who have broken the law before the courts.
  Perhaps the most obvious example would be Preston, which is a fairly well-known Labour authority where there was marked corruption by a combination of officers and Labour members. The proper forces took action. People were fined and others went to gaol. I understand that one gentleman is still being sought. He is in India. The authorities there are looking after him because he has been involved in drugs and drug importation.
  I shall be succinct, bearing in mind the time that we have been discussing the Bill. Three measures were outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, the Audit Commission should have powers to work alongside the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health. I think that everybody understands that. There is an independence of that inspectorate that has not been recognised to date by Opposition Members. I think that the power to work alongside will be generally welcomed.
  Secondly, there is the change in the financial year. I think that that change is a correct one and is understood. An awkward question was asked, to which there was a response.
  Thirdly, local authorities, as they have asked, will have greater freedom to publish annual information in the form of statistics in alternative free newspapers. We shall certainly reflect on what has been said about that.
  In conclusion—
  Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Paul Beresford: No, I shall not give way. The Bill is not a Christmas tree.
  Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you intervene to inform the Minister that many of the issues raised during the debate are worthy of consideration and that he should respond to them?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches.
  Mr. Boateng: On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a different point of order.
  Mr. Boateng: It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the usual customs and courtesies of the House, of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the sole arbiter.
  412
  We have been debating the Bill for about two-and-a-half hours. Important and detailed questions have been asked about specific clauses. I raised a question in relation to clause 1 about the independence of the Audit Commission and its right in publishing the figures that it produced recently on the funding of education in boroughs—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point of order.
  Mr. Boateng: I raised a specific point in relation to the Bill, arising from the Minister's opening speech and from other matters that were raised during the two and a half hour debate. Is it in accordance with the usual customs and courtesies of the House, with which the Minister must surely be acquainted by now, to ignore completely those points in summing up, and to proceed willy-nilly without any reference to the debate that has taken place? Is not that treating the proceedings of the House with contempt, and should not that be deplored?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is the same point of order as before, because the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the Bill receives its Second Reading there will be ample opportunity in Committee to deal with more detailed points.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I was trying to keep to the Bill—
  Mr. Boateng: Then deal with clause 1, will you?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No seated interventions. I know that the hon. Member for Brent, South is very keen to observe the courtesies and conventions of the House, and that is one of them.
  Sir Paul Beresford: There is no doubt about the independence of the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate, and its equivalent in Scotland. Its independence is quite clear, and I think that every hon. Member in the House sees and accepts that.
  Local authorities need clarity in preparing the performance information for 1995-96. The Bill will help that. As I said, it looks as though it will become a Christmas tree, with extra additions, which should make its Committee stage somewhat more interesting than it might otherwise have been.
  In general, I think that everyone in the House accepts that the clauses as outlined are for the betterment of the people of this country in relationship to the Audit Commission's role in producing a good quality service through local government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Chemical Weapons Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]
  Clause 1 to 19 agreed to.

  Chemical Weapons Bill
    Clause 20

      LICENCES
      6.23 pm
      Mr. Adam Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 14, line 29, leave out subsection (5), and insert—
      '(5) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 9, in clause 23, page 16, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      '(6) The regulations shall be made by statutory instrument, and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Ingram: The amendments seek to change the powers vested in the Secretary of State to introduce regulations under clauses 20 and 23 by negative order and make them subject to the affirmative procedure.
      We must be clear about the extensive powers that are given to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State substantial powers in the granting of licences to operate under the chemical weapons convention.
      Clause 23 lays down the punishments, which include prison sentences, for those who fail to comply with the terms of the legislation.
      The powers proposed in clauses 20 and 23, to which the amendments refer, were mentioned by a number of hon. Members on Second Reading. In response, the Minister said:
      "if hon. Members are worried about it—
      clause 23—
      we shall listen to their concerns."—[Official Report, 23 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 846.]
      I think that all hon. Members who took part in the debate, and probably those who are prepared to take part tonight, would accept the underlying principles of the clauses, but on Second Reading they were described as "draconian". I do not think that I used that word, although I was accused of doing so. I do not think that I would use that word, but if I did I would not want to continue to use it. The word was used by at least one other hon. Member in the debate, and I can understand why, because quite extensive powers are vested in the Secretary of State to take action in relation to those who default on the legislation.
      It is important that the powers should be open to proper scrutiny by the House, and that is the purpose of the amendments that we are considering. The best way to achieve that is by affirmative order. We do not say that simply for the sake of argument or to delay the House but
      414
      rather because the scientific community, which will be most affected by the clauses, is somewhat apprehensive about what will be produced in the regulations. It is calling for more transparency and more direct parliamentary scrutiny of all aspects of the Bill, and we shall deal with some of the concerns later.
      It is in the day-to-day running of the UK national authority—the function that the DTI will perform on behalf of this country—that the effectiveness of the Bill will be measured. It is essential, therefore, that the regulations are effective if we are to keep to the spirit of the convention. Increased parliamentary scrutiny will lead to more thought and debate on the minute details of the regulations, and therefore ensure that they are more likely to be workable.
      On Second Reading, the Minister gave certain assurances on appeal procedures, which will apply to licence applications under clause 20. His assurances are undoubtedly welcome, but why will he not accept the next logical step and allow them to be subject to the affirmative procedure?
      Clause 23, to which amendment No. 9 refers, can be described only as being somewhat obtuse. Subsection (1) reads:
      "The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description."
      If anything is an all-singing, all-dancing clause, this must be it. As was stated on Second Reading, it is a wonderful piece of parliamentary draftsmanship, but its precise meaning and implementation cause concern within the scientific community.
      Amendment No. 9 seeks merely to ensure that when the Secretary of State finally decides who will be covered by the clause his decision should be subject to the open scrutiny of the House. Again, I would argue that the best means of doing so is by affirmative order.
      Let me stress again that the scientific community generated the aims of the amendments. It is not a case of arguing for arguing's sake, or of advancing a negative view that should be positive. Those who will be directly affected by the legislation feel that the clauses will have a significant impact on their work in science and with chemical products. They believe that, in the cause of transparency and accountability, all aspects of the Bill should be dealt with openly by the House. The best and most effective way of doing that is not to slide regulation in through the back door, in the dark of the night, by means of the negative procedure: it should be done by affirmative resolution.
      The Minister has shown a willingness to listen to some of the reasoned arguments that have been advanced in our debates on the Bill. I hope that he has now given more thought to the points that were made on Second Reading, as well as what I have said. I ask him to respond positively, and to accept the principles and spirit of the amendments.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Robert Key: Clause 23(1) is important as it stands. It is not in the least confusing. It is because of such provisions that we have such high standards: it is because of the wording of subsection (1) that we can expect the entire scientific and industrial community

      415
      affected by the legislation to accept the responsibility to say, "This applies to me. It applies to my scientific institution, and to my company."
      It is because such standards can he guaranteed as a result of the Bill that Britain will be at the forefront of countries promoting the convention. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to suggest that I might be right about that, and will robustly defend the way in which the legislation has been framed. We are talking about only one sentence. Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I am opposed to parliamentary gobbledegook—I like crystal-clear English—and I believe that we have it here.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I hope that he will not think it offensive of me to ask him whether he speaks for his constituents in Porton.
      Mr. Key: I hope that I do. I have not conducted a referendum in my constituency, but my constituents have not said that they are concerned about this provision; nor have they asked me to promote the idea of a positive resolution of the statutory instrument or regulation that will follow.
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman may not have received such representations, but does he accept that representations to that effect have been made in the scientific community? We are now speaking not just for our constituencies but in the wider scientific interest. Does he accept that such concerns have been raised in the wider community, and does he accept the reasons for that? The concern is less about clause 23(1) than about the way in which the regulations will apply, and the need for the House to exercise proper accountability and scrutiny by using an affirmative rather than a negative procedure.
      Mr. Key: Of course I accept that. According to the briefing on the Bill that hon. Members have received, a body of opinion is in favour of it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will argue his corner. Later, when we deal with another part of the Bill, I shall seek to demonstrate that some of the "scientific advice" that we have been given is flawed.
      Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we should wait to hear what the Minister says, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) that there is concern about transparency. The Royal Society of Chemistry is not alone in asking for a proper, well-defined and transparent advisory structure within the Department of Trade and Industry. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say in answer to the question that has been asked.
      In regard to transparency, it is not just this Bill with which we must be concerned in the long term. I believe that 1996 is the time for the review of the 1972 convention on biological weapons. Transparency may be even more important in that connection.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I support my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). In fact, amendment No. 9 was tabled in my name. I am pleased to have had the support of the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Front-Bench team, but it happened merely because I got in first.
      Both amendments are simple. They call for an affirmative procedure when the regulations are made. Clause 23 confers wide-ranging powers. Those powers
      416
      will clearly be necessary if the convention is to be enforced properly, but there will be civil liberty implications and I do not think it unreasonable to demand an affirmative rather than a negative procedure. That will allow much more accountability.
      I have consulted a Library paper, which suggests that the system is basically the same as that applying to early-day motions. No time has been fixed, and in regard to the majority of cases no time is likely to be available for a debate. The affirmative procedure involves more stringent parliamentary controls: legislation must receive parliamentary approval before it comes into force. That does not necessarily mean that there must be a debate, but it gives us an opportunity to examine objections based on civil liberties if many Members of Parliament submit them.
      I believe that Parliament will pass the provisions come what may, provided that their impact on civil liberties will not be devastating, because we want the principles of the convention to be enforced, but we need accountability to Parliament.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I understand hon. Members' concern that the appeals process should be fair, independent and transparent, and I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) for his comments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key): it is intended that the Secretary of State will use the order-making power in the clause to adopt the model appeals provisions that are seen to be prescribed by order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That Act requires model appeal procedures to be prescribed by order, so that they can be incorporated in legislation with or without modifications. We intend to adopt the model appeal procedures with modifications, should that prove necessary.
      As I think hon. Members accept, it is important to standardise appeal procedures wherever possible to achieve some consistency—particularly in cases such as this, in which we expect appeals to be relatively infrequent. An appeals committee will need to be established. Its members will be drawn from research, academic, medical and other disciplines. We want to ensure that the committee has the breadth of knowledge to judge the types and quantities of chemicals to be licensed against the intended use, be it academic or industrial. It is open to the Opposition to pray against a negative resolution. In an extreme case where a Government tried to implement a procedure that was especially odious to the House—I suspect that if a Government sought to do that it would not be only the Opposition to whom it would be odious—the Opposition could pray against a negative resolution, so an important safety valve is in place.
      Mr. Dalyell: On the question of the committee, do the Government have a chairman in mind yet? Can they announce that to the House?
      Mr. Oppenheim: No, we do not have a chairman in mind yet. The hon. Gentleman raised not only issues relevant to the clause, but the question of an advisory committee in the context of transparency, which we shall, I think, consider later. It is important to separate the issues.

      417
      Clause 23 must be read not in isolation but with clause 22. Clause 23(2) restricts the scope of the regulations to persons covered by clause 22. That is the important point. The effect of clause 22(1)(a) is that the scope is restricted to persons likely to have information needed for the purposes of the convention. That power is therefore clearly restricted. It is not an open-ended power and I would be uncomfortable if it were open-ended and unrestricted.
      The convention is explicit about the information needed. As we know, there are four categories of chemicals—schedules 1 to 3 and discrete organic chemicals—and declarations are required for activities beyond the specific thresholds outlined in the annexes. Those must be reflected in the regulations.
      It is fair to say that the regulations must also reflect some detailed technical points, some of which have not yet been resolved. For example, if a chemical has been diluted, the question arises whether the concentration of the chemical is such that the dilution has put it beyond the requirement to be declared. That and other similar technical issues are currently under discussion internationally. They could change with the experience of the regime when it is under way. To ask the House to confirm all such changes by positive resolution would be onerous and unnecessary.
      I return to the fundamental point that if a Government tried to impose something by negative resolution that was onerous and odious to the House, it would be open not just to the Opposition but to Government Members to pray against it in extreme circumstances, which I do not think would arise.
      We need this power because the convention requires that all sites covered by declaration requirements must be included in the United Kingdom declaration. Inspections will take place to check declarations and the UK is, of course, open to challenge inspections if other states believe that we have not declared any site or that we have misdeclared any site.
      It is fair to say that other states' experience is that industry's response can be poor where there is no statutory requirement to give information. The experience in Australia was that 36 per cent. of companies failed to respond to a carefully structured convention-related survey.
      Mr. Dalyell: I want to ask about the challenge inspections. Do we have the guarantee, in so far as the Government can give it, that any challenge inspection, even if it seemed frivolous, would be accepted? For example, we are challenging—or Ralf Ekeus is challenging—the Iraqis, not that they are members yet, on the question of VX, which is worse than the Sarin that was used in the Tokyo underground. Rightly or wrongly, we might be angry if we were challenged by some Arab nation on a tit-for-tat basis. Do we have an undertaking from the Government that, however irritated they might be, they would feel it incumbent on themselves to accept such a challenge? The Minister might say that it is a hypothetical question, but it is important.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I would not say that that question is necessarily hypothetical. One would hope that it might be, but in the world as it is, it might not be. The only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that, if there were a
      418
      challenge inspection within the terms of the convention, we would be obliged to accept that. If a challenge were outside the terms, obviously we would not be so obliged. I think that is the best answer that I can give him.
      I understand the feeling behind the two amendments, but they are unnecessary and would restrict the convention's application. The powers that we are taking are not draconian, but the House's ultimate defence is that, if the Government did try to propose any regulations that were especially odious to the House, it could pray against the negative resolution.
      Mr. Ingram: It is a matter of regret that the Minister is not prepared to move on this matter as clearly there is a point of difference between us, although we are trying to reach the same objective: to ensure that the convention is properly implemented in this country and, more important, internationally. To try to achieve that, however, there must be openness, although the Government have moved substantially on what they were originally proposing as a result of representations received from a wide body of opinion.
      6.45 pm
      That same body of opinion—the Royal Society of Chemistry and other experts in this sector—is making the point about the need for an affirmative approach in relation to these two clauses. As I said, I am arguing not about the underlying principles of the clauses, but about the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of some of the details and of the way in which the legislation will apply. Although powers are vested in the Opposition to pray against negative orders, that puts the onus on the Opposition to oppose. The onus should, however, be on the Government to be open, but they appear to be unwilling to be open about the application of the regulations.
      As it appears that I shall be unable to persuade the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 25

      RIGHTS OF ENTRY ETC. FOR PURPOSES OF INSPECTIONS
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 17, line 9, after 'the', insert 'Convention and the'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 7, in clause 35, page 22, line 19, after 'Convention', insert 'and its annexes'.
      Mr. Cohen: I am happy to move my amendment No. 3, which is linked to amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 3 relates to clause 25, and amendment No. 7 to clause 35.
      The amendments that I have tabled are mainly probing amendments, to obtain information from the Minister, or tidying-up amendments. Amendment No. 3 falls into the category of a tidying-up amendment. In one of those clauses, the convention is mentioned, but not the annexes to the convention; in the other, the verification annex is mentioned, but not the convention. I have tabled amendments that link the two, so that, on the face on the Bill, it would say, "the Convention and the annexes".

      419
      That relates to amendment No. 3 and the rights of entry for inspection purposes, which is tied up with article IX of the convention. Clause 35 gives the Minister powers to amend the Act if an amendment to the convention is subsequently agreed to by the various parties to it.
      The amendment refers to both the convention and the annexes. It would stop anyone using the legislation as a loophole, perhaps, to avoid inspection. They could say that it related only to the convention and not to the annexes. It might also prevent any future legal dispute over that matter if the two were put together. It is a simple tidying-up amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
      Mr. Dalyell: What is the Government's attitude to generic licensing? If the Minister would rather deal with that when we come to schedule 1 or later in his brief I should be prepared to wait. However, I have put down a marker now because generic licensing is important.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I shall do my best to answer that, although it is not directly related to the clause or the amendment. We shall consider it where it is sensible and within the bounds of the convention. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could expect me to say any more about that issue. If he would like to discuss the matter at some future time, I should be happy to do so.
      I appreciate the spirit of helpfulness with which the amendment was moved, but, with respect, amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are based on a misunderstanding. The articles of the convention place certain obligations on state parties. The verification annex itself defines the verification procedures, and that contains the rights of the inspection teams. Article 17 of the convention makes it clear that all references to it include its verification annex, with all the powers and rights of the inspection teams. Consequently, a reference to both would be basically confusing and unnecessary, because the reference to the verification text as it stands is correct.
      The same applies to amendment No. 7, which introduces a reference to the annexes to the convention in subsection 1 of the clause. The reference is again unnecessary, because article 17 of the convention states that the annexes form an integral part of the convention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he moved the amendments, but, with respect, they are unnecessary.
      Mr. Dalyell: I understand the Minister's answer on generic licensing, but the mind boggles at having to license every individual chemical, because that would be a gargantuan task. I suspect that, at the end of the day, generic licensing will have to be accepted.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I shall try my best to respond to that. Licensing applies only to the most harmful and dangerous, and quite often complex, chemicals that are licensed, rather than to the reporting requirements. We are dealing here with chemical substances that are not used by many organisations, but obviously we have to try to look after the interests of those organisations that legitimately use them. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, and if it is possible to be helpful in the context of generic licensing and stay within the terms of the convention, I assure him that we shall certainly look at that.
      Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation that the convention also covers the annexes. Hopefully, there will be no loopholes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26

      OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH INSPECTIONS
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 4, page 18, line 24, at end insert—
      '(d) knowingly makes a false or misleading statement to any member of the inspection team or of the in-country escort, or the observer, in the conduct of that inspection in accordance with the verification annex.'.
      I am quite keen on this amendment, which is about offences in connection with inspections. At the moment, there are three main categories of offence—refusing to comply; interfering with any object, for example a container; or wilfully obstructing. There should be a fourth category, to deal with someone who knowingly makes a false or misleading statement to any member of the inspection team or to the in-country escort or the observer during the conduct of that inspection in accordance with the verification annex.
      During an inspection, it is vital that the correct information is presented to the inspection team. The Bill would not make the giving of false or misleading statements an offence, and that is wrong. Clause 26(1)(c) covers only physical obstruction, and does not cover false or misleading statements.
      I have looked up a couple of Acts in which this issue is raised. Section 33(1)(a) of the Food Safety Act 1990 refers to a person who
      "intentionally obstructs any person acting in the execution of this Act;".
      That covers wilful obstruction. Section 33(2)(a) of that same Act refers to someone who
      "furnishes information which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular;".
      Plainly, earlier legislation drew the distinction between wilful obstruction and the furnishing of false information. That means that the distinction has been recognised by the Government.
      Section 35(1)(a) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 refers to any person who
      "intentionally obstructs an inspector or other person in the exercise of any powers conferred by section 31,".
      That again relates to wilful obstruction, but section 35(1)(b) says that a person who
      "refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to provide facilities or assistance or any information or to permit any inspection reasonably required by an inspector or other person under that section,
      shall be guilty of an offence."
      That again shows that we need to go beyond wilful obstruction in which false and misleading information is a factor. Clause 23 of the Bill would make it an offence for anybody knowingly to make a false or misleading statement to the Government. The same should apply to the inspection team. I was too late in suggesting that when the Act which implemented the treaty on conventional forces in Europe was going through the House. It did not appear in the Act, although the Minister responsible for the legislation said that he would look at it. It should have been incorporated.

      421
      It is not right that anyone should be able to lie to an inspector from wherever he comes, or mislead him, and not be committing an offence. We should make it clear that such conduct is an offence, and if the amendment is accepted, that can be shown. I hope that the Minister will accept the logic of that, and the logic of previous legislation, and accept the amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am concerned about the role of the organisation at The Hague in all this, and about what is said to the central body. That issue among others was raised by the Royal Society of Chemistry. For the convenience of the Minister and his officials, I shall read from page 9 of the briefing of 28 November which I know has been sent to the Department. It states:
      "The regular returns of industrial data on Schedule-2 and Schedule-3 chemicals will take their place alongside various other declarations of data to the OPCW Technical Secretariat which the Convention requires of States Parties.
      Gathering the data and then transmitting appropriate aggregations to The Hague will be one of the two main occupations of the National Authorities. (The other main occupation will be preparing for, and liaising with, visiting OPCW inspectors who have been asked either to validate declared data by routine on-site inspection or to perform challenge inspections.)
      Some of the declarations are needed only once, for example the declarations of historical information on past chemical weapons activities. Other types of declaration, including the industrial data, are to be submitted each year … HMG informed Parliament as follows, in a written Defence Ministry answer on 22 November 1995: 'Details of UK's declarations required under the chemical weapons convention will be made available to the public when they are passed to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
      The questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has rightly asked about the national situation I am sure also apply to the international situation. One wonders what powers, if any, the organisation of The Hague has to ensure that it is not being deceived or lied to.
      7 pm
      Mr. Oppenheim: That really resides with national Governments, who have an obligation under the convention to ensure that there is full and open reporting.
      I agree with the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I think, however, that it is a matter of degree. I shall try to explain the different situations that might arise.
      For example, it would be extreme to penalise a person who might just be a plant worker who knows little about the chemical weapons convention, and who may not have been warned formally not to make a misleading or false statement, especially bearing in mind that the inspectors may well be international and not UK citizens, which might lead to some confusion.
      Also, given that the chemical industry competes internationally, plant workers might be keen not to breach commercial confidentiality, which is understandable. When genuine mistakes are made and they are not significant, we must have the scope and flexibility not to prosecute, especially where people will be making statements without being either under oath or under caution.
      422
      I emphasise that we would leave ourselves scope to prosecute any significant breach of faith, misleading information or covering up. We just do not want to be obliged to prosecute for every little technical offence, which might well be non-malicious.
      In serious cases, the Bill clearly makes it an offence to give false information in response to a notice served under clause 22. In that case, it is quite proper that there should he a penalty, as the recipient will have been clearly warned that it is an offence to give false information in response to the notice. Where the provision of false information amounts to obstruction, an offence may also be committed under clause 26.
      We do not want to have to prosecute every tiny, technical, insignificant offence. Quite clearly, we will prosecute major offences and instances in which misleading information has been given in order to mislead and is significant.
      Mr. Cohen: I hear what the Minister says. I do not want to prosecute every minor matter, either, but that would not be the consequence of my amendment. Omitting the point about false and misleading information would open up quite a serious loophole. I am not going to press the amendment to a vote. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is going to intervene.
      I certainly think that the Minister should look at the matter, because it relates to inspections. He has taken the power for himself in an earlier clause about the provision of information about chemical weapons, and it is important that that same power should be given to the inspection teams, so that they can be assured that they are receiving information in good faith. They have a limited time under the convention to carry out their inspections. Any misleading information could point them in the wrong direction and take up that time. That would be very serious, in my view.
      Although I shall not press the amendment, I will not withdraw it yet, either, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride is about to comment. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. Perhaps, when he brings forward the regulations under clause 23, he will consider tightening up those covering inspections, while obviously granting himself the power not to have to prosecute in every case. I do not want that—nobody in the House wants that.
      Mr. Ingram: Obviously the amendment has provoked a little interest. I was neutral on the matter, and waited to hear the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has made a very strong case in support of his amendment, and has accepted some of the Minister's points about being careful to avoid punishing every slight indiscretion. But we should remember that that is not what is being sought.
      The amendment says that a person is guilty if he
      "knowingly makes a false or misleading statement."
      When someone knowingly does that, they have clearly done something wrong, and should not be allowed to do so, as the Minister was suggesting, because they were acting in the interests of their company's commercial confidentiality. That is a very dangerous route to go down.
      Is the Minister arguing that, because commercial confidentiality is involved, people can tell lies on behalf of their company? I hope that that is not what he is saying

      423
      in the context of the Bill, because it would have wide-ranging implications. I certainly hope that he is not saying, in the case of any Government legislation, that people can knowingly mislead or give false information which is tantamount to the perpetration of a crime. If the Minister is advancing that principle, it is totally wrong.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not yet withdrawing his amendment, and for the fact that he has asked the Minister the right question. I suggest that the Minister take the amendment away and look at it. There will be time during consideration in the other place to take account of all the points made. But if the Government still feel strongly at that stage that they not do want to accept the amendment, they could argue their case if the matter is raised.
      Clearly there is merit in my hon. Friend's arguments. I do not, however, think that the Minister's arguments are wholly satisfactory. The best solution is to put the matter on the back burner; let us consider it further. That would help the understanding and progress of the Bill in another place.
      Mr. Dalyell: It may well be that the Minister is being only realistic when he says that it is a matter for the nation states. Do we then take it that, in fact, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has virtually no powers at all? If so, how does it set about trying to impose what it believes to be right? I think that it is very difficult.
      Mr. Oppenhiem: There will be scope for the House of Lords to reconsider the matter if it proves to be a problem. The feeling that we have, though, is that the Bill has sufficient powers. It is a matter of degree. I think that I have made it clear that we would expect prosecutions to occur when significant misleading statements are made.
      The hon. Member for Leyton should consider the scenario of a foreign inspection team visiting a factory, where someone at that factory is not under oath, is not given a warning, is asked a question that may not be very significant, and, yes, may, eve knowingly give a wrong answer without really considering the implications. We want the scope to allow people to do that, because people are fallible.
      Someone who does not necessarily speak the best English may visit a factory and ask a plant worker questions. The worker may be a little concerned, not know the implications and not be totally au fait with every aspect of the Bill. Questions may even be asked about chemicals which the plant worker does not necessarily know are dangerous. Some of the chemicals in the lower schedules are not obviously dangerous. We want to allow scope not to prosecute under those circumstances.
      I should, however, like to make it clear that, when people are under oath and have been warned, and then make knowingly misleading statements, they will be prosecuted. Even if a warning had not been issued, there would be scope to prosecute people who knowingly make misleading statements which are significant and detrimental to the working of the convention. Although I would like to leave it like that, there will be an opportunity in the other place, should there be genuine concern, to amend the Bill.
      Mr. Cohen: I again appreciate what the Minister has said. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride for reminding me that the amendment refers to
      424
      people knowingly making misleading statements. Nobody wants to punish genuine mistakes to which the Minister has referred. But quite a dangerous loophole is opening up, which could undermine the inspection process. I do not think that we should let that come about.
      I hope that the matter will be reconsidered in the other place and that, in the interim, the Government will think about it and agree to a suitable amendment—with wording of their own choice—that would protect those who have made genuine mistakes but deal with those who have made a deliberate attempt to mislead. If the inspection team or the management of the chemical factory explains the law under the Bill, matters could be further clarified.
      Mr. Dalyell: It would be a good idea to have some sort of statement on the leverage that is available to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I am afraid that I am not very clear about what it could do if it found that it was being deceived or if it faced other difficulties.
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister nodded when I asked about some sort of statement on the OPCW. Nods are not recorded in Hansard—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not usually work by nods or by interruptions when I am putting the Question. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a matter that arises under clause 26 stand part?
      Mr. Dalyell: Under clause stand part, I am simply asking that the Minister's nod be interpreted in Hansard as a yes. These things happen by alchemy. I hope that there will be some statement in the other place about the powers or otherwise of the OPCW. It is an important matter.
      Mr. Oppenheim: It is nice to be thought of as an alchemist, although a nuclear weapons Bill would be more appropriate if we wanted to change one substance into another. I was nodding to show that I was listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The international body has quite clear sanctions when a country is in breach of the convention. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I write to him outlining all the sanctions. Then, if he wants to speak further about it, I shall happily arrange that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 27 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 31

      OFFENCES: OTHER PROVISIONS
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 6, page 20, line 35, leave out 'section 2 or 11' and insert 'this Act'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 20, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
      Mr. Cohen: The amendments relate to offences, as defined by the Bill. The clause refers to sections 2 and

      425
      11 , which relate to the really serious offences—for example, those with potential life sentences for possessing, using, developing, producing or transferring chemical weapons. They require the consent of the Attorney-General to any prosecution.
      There is a split in the authority to prosecute offences under the Bill. The serious offences require the consent of the Attorney-General, but for the minor offences scattered throughout the Bill it will be for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to say whether there should be prosecutions. I am not sure why there should be such a split.
      I am concerned that there could be a conflict of interest relating to the prosecution for smaller offences. I can give a topical example—although I do not do it to make the Minister irate—which is the Scott inquiry. It is possible that a Minister would want to block a prosecution if going ahead with it would cause some embarrassment to his Department. Currently, the Scott inquiry is examining the failure of export control procedures, which is a matter for the DTI. If a Minister were to be embarrassed by such a failure within his Department, he might not authorise a prosecution under the Bill because he would not want to advertise that embarrassment.
      7.15 pm
      The possible conflict of interest is serious. It is certainly not hypothetical because it is exactly what Lord Justice Scott is examining. The matter needs explanation and some assurances from the Minister that prosecutions will not be stopped just to cover up embarrassments.
      There is the question of how the Bill applies to Scotland. The only Law Officer in Scotland who can bring prosecutions is the Lord Advocate. He is responsible for any prosecutions for both the serious offences and the other minor offences that are scattered through the Bill. If, in England and Wales, all the decisions to prosecute rested with the Attorney-General, that would be equivalent to the position in Scotland. I do not understand why there is a different prosecuting system in England and Wales from the one in Scotland.
      These are probing amendments, but they raise substantial points that are worthy of consideration and answers from the Minister. Clearly, the Secretary of State will be responsible for securing Britain's compliance with the convention. There should not be any conflict of interest when it comes to prosecuting for offences.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I have some sympathy with it. He made a fair point in saying that the Secretary of State would be both the regulating authority and the prosecuting authority. I hope that I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest by saying that with large and significant cases, the Attorney-General in England and Wales or the Lord Advocate in Scotland will be involved. It is only with the relatively minor cases that the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision on whether an offence is worth prosecution. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
      The position is fairly consistent with what happens in other areas. The Attorney-General really deals only with fairly major cases. He is not geared up to deal with all the minor cases. It would cause problems for the operation of the convention and the Act if we were to put all cases
      426
      before the Attorney-General. It would clog up his office. If—to take the opposite end of the spectrum from the hon. Gentleman—it was thought that in certain cases the Secretary of State was taking action in a frivolous way, the courts would be the arbiter of that. Of course, the Secretary of State ultimately would be accountable to Parliament.
      I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State would not bring frivolous prosecutions for relatively minor offences. On the other hand, it is clear that the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate would be involved in major offences. Therefore, I cannot imagine any cover-up in major cases because all such cases would be referred to the Law Offices.
      Mr. Dalyell: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the comments of the Royal Society of Chemistry, which has said that if the Department of Trade and Industry or the national authority were ever to have to confront a rogue agency—that is not a hypothetical question—it might need all the support and safeguards it could muster, including parliamentary protection. Presumably that parliamentary protection will not be a great problem under the legislation we are debating tonight. But such protection would be no bad thing under less apocalyptic circumstances, such as the Department of Trade and Industry merely seeking the assistance of other Departments or reminding them of their obligations under the convention. This could be a problem. While one does not expect frivolous prosecutions, it sometimes turns out that prosecutions are less well-founded than people acting in good faith once thought.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says and, in the circumstances he has described, such prosecutions would be found out by the courts. I do not think that it would be sustainable for the President of the Board of Trade to go down that route too often, because ultimately he would be accountable to Parliament. Quite often prosecutions are started which are not considered to be frivolous, and presumably it should be open to the Secretary of State or the prosecuting authority to withdraw a prosecution when it becomes apparent that it has no real substance. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
      Mr. Cohen: I hear what the Minister says, and I have some sympathy with his point that the Attorney-General's Department would get clogged up if it had to deal with all the prosecutions. I understand that point, and I heard the assurances that he gave on the matter as well.
      I am still concerned about the potential conflict of interest within the Department, despite the Minister's assurances, which I appreciate were important. I wonder if I could entice him further along the road in his assurances. Perhaps he could put on the record—although I know that he cannot bind any future Minister or any future Government to this—that any parliamentary question in this delicate area which relates to the role of Ministers in the prosecution of offences will receive a proper answer and will not be blocked, because I know that there is a procedure to block sensitive questions.
      The public interest immunity certificate procedure is coming under scrutiny from Lord Justice Scott, and it may be that the procedure will change. But the fact that a PII certificate has been issued should not get in the way of answering a parliamentary question about the prosecution

      427
      of offences under the convention. I know that the Minister cannot bind any future Government, but if he could give an assurance that he would like that to be the case, that would be another step forward and I would be happy to withdraw my amendment.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. First, it would be a matter of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny that, under those circumstances, such questions should be answered. The only example that I can think of where parts of questions may not be answered for such reasons is in cases where there is commercial confidentiality. But as the Minister responsible, I can give my assurance that we will do our absolute utmost to be as transparent as possible and to answer questions where it is reasonable and fair that we should do so without going outside the convention by breaching commercial confidentiality. I hope that that statement assures the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Cohen: In the light of the Minister's further assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 32

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I beg to move amendment No. 11, page 21, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2A) The reference to this Act in subsection (2)(c) does not include a reference to section (Annual reports by Secretary of State).'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government new clause 3—Annual reports by Secretary of State—and new clause 2—Annual Report—
      `(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report to be presented to both Houses of Parliament on his activities in relation to this Act.
      (2) The annual report shall contain the following information for the year in question in pursuance of the provisions of this Act—

      (a) the number of companies and other organisations that have provided information to the Secretary of State;

      (b) the identities of chemicals that have been declared to the Secretary of State, and their aggregate quantities;

      (c) the number of licences granted under this Act and their duration;

      (d) the number of appeals against decisions made under the provisions of this Act;

      (e) the extent of compliance of companies and other organisations with the provisions of this Act;

      (f) the number of prosecutions for offences under this Act;

      (g) the number of routine inspections of premises and the number of challenge inspections;

      (h) an audit of the outcome of inspection of premises;

      (i) the text of the report prepared in accordance with Article X.4 of the Convention, excluding matters of a confidential nature;

      (j) the identities of any chemicals not listed in the Schedules that pose a risk to the purpose of the Convention;

      (k) changes in export control regulations necessitated by section 2 of this Act and by Articles VI.2, VI.11 and XI.2(c) of the Convention:

      (I) the names of the individuals appointed to serve on the Advisory Committee;

      (m) any changes in the international administration of the Convention; and

      (n) such other information as may serve to demonstrate UK compliance with the Convention.'.

      Mr. Oppenheim: I listened extremely carefully to the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading, during a debate which I thought was extremely useful. I understand the concerns that the work of the national authority should be subject to proper scrutiny, and I told the House at Second Reading that the national authority would issue an annual report. Clearly my assurance on that occasion was not enough for hon. Members, although I do not take any offence at that. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should.
      We have consulted on the issue, and we came to the conclusion—rightly, I think—that to put this into statute was the right thing to do. I have no doubt that the annual report will enhance the process of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the national authority. Therefore, we have no objection to the annual report being included in the Bill. I think that that reflects the wishes of the House.
      I should add that the amendment means that those who compile the annual report will properly be subject to the requirement to safeguard confidential information, which I think is reasonable. I should also make it clear that our intention is for the report to be as informative as it can be within the clear requirements to protect commercial confidentiality and national security which are included in the convention.
      It is fair to say that the report might include information on a number of companies providing information for the purposes of a United Kingdom declaration, the number of licences issued, the number of appeals, the number of prosecutions and the number of inspections. We also expect the report to contain a clear explanation of the national authority's work. But of course the report will be laid before both Houses, and hon. Members will have a duty to tell us if not enough information is being provided. If that is the case and the request is reasonable, we will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the extra information is included.
      Finally, we should not impose rigid requirements on the contents of the report. We should be flexible, as ultimately we are accountable to the House for the matter. The Secretary of State must decide ultimately what information will demonstrate to the satisfaction of both Houses that he has undertaken his duties under the Act effectively and efficiently. He obviously has a requirement under the convention and under the Bill, and he must balance that with the need to protect commercial confidentiality and national security. I hope that by putting the matter into statute, we will make the Bill more transparent and the national authority more accountable.
      Mr. Ingram: I welcome the Government's conversion to agreeing that there is a need for the annual report to be written on to the face of the Bill. I do not know why they have had this last-minute change of mind, but clearly it is to be welcomed. I know that three ex-presidents of the Royal Society of Chemistry—Lords Dainton, Lewis of Newnham and Porter of Luddenham—had submitted a letter to The Times to be published this morning calling for the report to be included in the Bill.

      429
      Those three are very weighty people in this field, and they were pleased to learn yesterday that the Government had tabled this amendment and new clause. Clearly they did not proceed with the publication of the letter. I do not know whether the Minister was aware of the level of support that was coming forward for the annual report to be put on the face of the Bill. If he was, it must have encouraged him to come to the conclusion that he did.
      New clause 2—tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends—was tabled in advance of the Government's tabling of amendment No. 11 and new clause 3. We sought to go further in new clause 2 than the measures announced by the Minister this evening. I take the point completely about the question of commercial confidentiality and those matters which affect national security. The items are covered within the convention, and the Opposition clearly understand the need to be circumspect if matters relating to such sensitive issues were to appear in any annual report.
      I suggest that there is still a difference between the Government and the Opposition as to what is required in terms of the annual report.
      I did not quite catch all the points that the Minister was saying he would like to see in an annual report, but I think that he mentioned the number of companies and other organisations providing information to the Secretary of State, the number of licences granted and the number of appeals against refusal.
      However, new clause 2 is much more comprehensive than that. There is much merit in taking on board the points that it lists, because it is right that the House and the country should be told about the number of prosecutions under the Act, the number of routine inspections of premises and the audit of the outcome of those inspections. The text of the report prepared in accordance with article X.4 of the convention, which is to be sent to the central body in The Hague, does not exclude matters of a confidential nature, and that, too, could be included in the annual report. The information is to be sent off somewhere else in the name of the United Kingdom, so why should it not be included in the report produced for the consumption of hon. Members and others interested in the subject?
      New clause 2 suggests other topics that could be included in the annual report, such as the identities of any chemicals not listed in the schedules which pose a risk under the terms of the convention. On Second Reading we talked about the annual report produced by Porton Down. That is comprehensive and highlighted certain activities connected with chemical weapons which caused concern, and rightly alerted the wider public to what is happening in the former Soviet Union. That is the type of information that would he of benefit to all interested parties. It would secure proper scrutiny of what was taking place, and make the report as comprehensive and detailed as possible.
      7.30 pm
      It would help if the Minister went further than simply listing three or four possible items for the report and saying that the Secretary of State would be keen to ensure that it was as comprehensive as possible. He has not taken on board some of the other suggestions in new clause 2.
      430
      I have not listed all those, because they are on the amendment paper for all to see, but I have highlighted some of the more important areas of concern.
      We are pleased that there is to be an annual report, but it must be as comprehensive as possible, while allowing for matters of a confidential nature and matters of national security. Has the Minister considered the points raised by new clause 2 and thought which of them he feels could be included in the report? It would be useful if he could notify us of the items that he believes could not be included, so that we could have a debate on the merits of all the points in the new clause.
      The Government have made an important concession. First, they did not want to produce an annual report, then we had to rely on the Minister's word that they would produce one, and now we are on the point of having a statutory annual report. We are grateful for that, but let us take things a little step further and define properly what would be in the report. It would speed up the deliberations when the Bill is discussed in another place if the House of Commons were given a proper explanation of what the Minister and the Secretary of State have in mind. I should therefore welcome any comments the Minister can make about the points in new clause 2.
      Mr. Nick Harvey: I too welcome the fact that the Government have decided to introduce a new clause and put the report on a statutory footing. It is entirely right that the requirement should be written on the face of the Bill. The Minister should not take offence that anyone might cast doubt on the assurances that he gave last time, because they simply do not have the same standing as words in an Act.
      Tomorrow morning I shall give written evidence to a current judicial review which proves that assurances given by Ministers two years ago have been broken—in that case by a quango. The Government's change of mind reassures us that the same thing will not happen in relation to the Bill.
      Although I welcome that fact, I echo the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) in saying that it would be helpful to see more specific details of what will appear in the report. I hope that there will be further opportunities to debate the matter during the passage of the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: As I made a so-called parliamentary song and dance a fortnight ago about the need for statutory implementation, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge what has happened now. None the less, I echo what the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said about Ministers' assurances. Assurances are frequently given in good faith but broken long after the ministerial incumbent has either been promoted or has left the House altogether, so the Minister need not be offended.
      Mr. Oppenheim: Having been a Member of Parliament for 13 years, I find it difficult to take offence. I must tell the hon. Member for East Kilbride that we took the decision some time ago that there should be an annual report, and that we also decided to write that on the face of the Bill some time before we heard about the letter from their Lordships—although obviously we listen carefully to their views, because they are all distinguished chemists.
      I see no difficulty in including some of the information suggested in the new clause, and certainly would expect much of it to appear in the report.

      431
      However, the hon. Gentleman asked me which items I would specifically exclude, so I must mention subsection 2(b), which asks that aggregate quantities of individual declared chemicals should be incorporated into the report. That could compromise commercially sensitive information where only a few companies, or sometimes only one company, produces a chemical. Certainly it would be in breach of the convention.
      The whole spirit of the convention relies on our obtaining the co-operation of chemical and pharmaceutical producers, as well as of researchers and academics. I genuinely believe that if producers felt that we were going outside the convention and were likely to breach commercial confidentiality, it could compromise the proper working of the convention.
      Another area that causes concern is subsection 2(j), which would require unscheduled chemicals with the potential to be used in chemical weapons to be identified in the report. There is a danger that that could help proliferators by alerting them to the fact that there was something to look for. It could also lead to confusion. The point of the convention is that there is a schedule of chemicals, which can be added to. If we unilaterally added a whole lot more chemicals without their going through the convention procedure, it could lead to confusion and difficulties. Any information about chemicals with the potential for chemical weapons applications, especially information on novel compounds, should be carefully controlled.
      I would be concerned about the idea that those be included in an annual report. I accept the intention behind the new clause, and we intend to make the report as informative as is consistent with protecting commercial confidentiality and national security.
      As for the push behind our concession, or new clause, and the Government's present desire to make the requirement for an annual report statutory, the point of debates such as Second Reading, of the consultations and of the representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that we are all aiming at the same end; we are all trying to make the convention work. It is most important, not only for us in Britain but for the future of the globe, that we succeed. We were prepared to listen to what hon. Members said, and we have responded in a spirit of co-operation, to ensure that the convention will work as well as possible. I hope that if our positions were reversed, the hon. Member for East Kilbride would do the same.
      Mr. Ingram: "If" is a big word; we prefer to use the word "when". I entirely take the Minister's point, and I appreciate his explanation of the list of items in new clause 2 that could be included in the annual report. I listened to what he said, and the details can be considered elsewhere, when the Bill goes to another place. The Government will then be able to take on board the points that we have made—hence our reason for raising the question in the first place.
      There are 12 items listed in new clause 2 and the Minister ruled out only two of them, so we are making considerable progress. I hope that the other 10 items
      432
      will be included either in the form in which they are laid down in new clause 2 or in some variation of it. That would prove helpful in producing the annual reports. It would assist all those who want to ensure that the convention is being properly monitored and implemented by Britain. I recognise the spirit in which the Minister has responded.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 35

      POWER TO AMEND THIS ACT
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 22, line 21, after second 'order', insert 'solely'.
      This is the last of my amendments and I shall not take up much time with it.
      Clause 35 deals with the power to amend the legislation when it is passed. Any major change of principle to the convention that would need a change in the Act must be dealt with by some form of primary legislation, such as a new Act or a statutory instrument under the affirmative resolution procedure, as we discussed in earlier debates.
      There is also the question of amendments to the schedule that lists chemicals. It may well be that that list has to be amended in a hurry, and rightly so. A new chemical could come to notice which could be used as a chemical weaponry agent. Such a chemical would have to be added to the list as quickly as possible and a negative resolution statutory instrument seems appropriate, solely in that instance. My amendment would give the power to add a new chemical to the list quickly while changes of principle should be enacted after thorough consideration by the House of Commons.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I accept the intention behind the amendment. The power to make amendments to the schedule should not be used to make amendments to other parts of the legislation at the same time. That was certainly not our intention.
      The hon. Gentleman has tabled so many amendments and made such a contribution to the Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that it would be churlish of me not to accept his amendment. I am told by the parliamentary draftsman that this is only the second time in 25 years that an unamended Opposition amendment has been accepted. However, it was a close-run thing. The parliamentary draftsman suggested that we use the word "only" instead of "solely" and table a Government amendment, but it would have been churlish to go down that route.
      I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. It is a small step for him and a large step for the Chemical Weapons Bill.
      Mr. Cohen: I thank the Minister.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 3

      ANNUAL REPORTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE
      'The Secretary of State shall in each calendar year—
      (a) prepare a report on the operation of this Act, and
      (b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Oppenheim.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      `(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a committee to give advice, either when requested to do so or otherwise on any matters relating to the control of chemical weapons in furthering the general purposes of this Act.
      (2) In pursuance of subsection (1)—

      (a) the Secretary of State shall appoint the members of the committee and appoint one of those members to be chairman;

      (b) in appointing members of the committee, the Secretary of State shall ensure that all groups of persons likely to be affected by the Act are represented;

      (c) the committee shall, at such time in each year as the Secretary of State may direct, publish a report with respect to the performance of the committee's functions;

      (d) the Secretary of State may make provision by regulations with respect to the terms on which members of the committee may hold and vacate office, including the terms on which any person appointed as chairman shall hold and vacate office as chairman;

      (e) the Secretary of State shall provide the committee with such staff and such accommodation, services and other facilities as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the proper performance of the committee's functions;

      (f) the Secretary of State may pay to the members of the committee such remuneration (if any) and such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury;

      (g) the committee shall not be taken to be the servant or agent of the Crown or to enjoy any status or immunity of the Crown;

      (h) regulations under this schedule shall be made by statutory instrument and no regulations shall be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      There is obviously a spirit of good will on the Government Benches.
      Mr. Oppenheim indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ingram: The Minister indicates that there is not too much, but perhaps the power of persuasion can be applied.
      We have made considerable progress with the Bill. We now have an annual report which, from the indications given in our previous debate, will be fairly comprehensive and satisfy many people. Some of the submissions in support of the annual report were from eminent
      434
      individuals and bodies who were seeking improvements to the Bill. The Royal Society of Chemistry, which has been mentioned several times during the passage of the Bill, was one of the main bodies that had an input. It should come as no surprise that the Royal Society of Chemistry is supportive of the principles of new clause 1, which would introduce an advisory committee to assist the Government, as a national authority, in the implementation of the legislation.
      The best arguments are those used by the Royal Society of Chemistry. We could all make our own interpretations of the matter, but, given the weight of the arguments advanced by the Royal Society of Chemistry, it would be useful to read from its briefing to place its concerns on the record.
      The Royal Society of Chemistry states:
      "The DTI must also be held to account in regard to less tangible but no less central aspects of UK compliance with the Convention, notably: maintaining the integrity of the General Purpose Criterion; the accuracy of the Convention-required industrial data that it submits to the OPCW on behalf of the UK; the protection of UK national programmes related to protective purposes; the accuracy of the annual reports made to the OPCW on the UK protective programmes; ensuring, insofar as the UK is competent to do so, that the treaty regime is fully reflective of the latest developments in science and technology; and the protection of UK compliance against pressures to develop breakout options, such as ones which new technical developments might come to suggest.
      The DTI will be in no position to assure Parliament on these matters unless the National Authority has the active co-operation of both governmental and non-governmental organisations: CBDE Porton Down, private chemical industry, the wider scientific community, and others. Such support will surely not be forthcoming to the extent necessary if the National Authority falls short of modern standards of openness and accountability (having due regard to the necessary confidentiality of some categories of relevant information). Nor may the support be satisfactorily forthcoming if interests affected by the work of the National Authority are entirely unrepresented in the Authority itself or bodies associated with it."
      The society makes a strong and irrefutable case for an advisory committee or body to work alongside the DTI as the national authority.
      The Royal Society of Chemistry goes on in its briefing document to specify how an advisory board should operate. It states:
      "An Advisory Board should be constituted in order to receive reports from the National Authority. The frequency of the reports should be in phase with the roughly 180-day cycles that will direct the National Authority's routine reporting to the OPCW".
      The report refers to details relating to that and continues:
      "The contents of the reports to the Advisory Board would be considered and discussed at meetings between the Board and staff of the National Authority.
      Representation on the Board would reflect the various domestic communities affected by implementation of the Convention, as well as sources of expertise essential to the work of the Authority. So there should be representation not only of CBDE Porton Down but also of any CBDE advisory committee involved in overseeing Porton's work for the National Authority. Membership of the Board should also include any UK expert there might be on the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board."
      The society again makes a strong case. It is not an instance of the Opposition arguing for the sake of argument, trying to find some flaw or weakness. We have tried to take the arguments advanced by the Royal Society of Chemistry and others and put them into parliamentary language. That is manifested in new clause 1, which replicates the provisions which apply to the Food and

      435
      Environment Protection Act 1985 in relation to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. That advisory committee has existed for more than 40 years and became a statutory body in 1985. It is well respected and proved itself to be useful and helpful both before and after becoming a statutory body.
      During our discussions on Second Reading, it was stated that the activities of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides had been favourably commented upon by the Select Committee on Agriculture in its fifth report to the previous Parliament. That raises the question: if such an advisory committee is deemed to be necessary for the control and regulation of pesticides, why is not a similar committee deemed necessary to regulate and control substances such as the chemicals mentioned in the Bill and covered by the convention, which are potentially more dangerous?
      The Minister has shown a willingness to listen and to bend to expert opinion as the Bill has developed from its first draft to its second draft. Tonight—I think for only the second time in 25 years—an amendment presented by an Opposition Member has been accepted. That demonstrates substantial movement, particularly by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). He told us on Second Reading that he did not favour regulation, but I think that he has come to recognise the benefits of regulation in relation to matters as critical as chemicals and chemical weapons.
      New clause 1 has much merit. As I have said, it replicates what is already laid down in statute in relation to the regulation of pesticides. Chemicals are potentially much more dangerous than pesticides, and great benefits could be obtained from an advisory committee working alongside the national authority. That is why I quoted in detail from the advice given by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that he would make a detailed contribution to the debate because advice that we had received was wrong or misplaced—I cannot remember his exact words.
      Mr. Key: Flawed.
      Mr. Ingram: Flawed—that is useful. Obviously, he will participate in this debate and we shall listen with interest to hear how he intends to contradict the Royal Society of Chemistry. He told us during the Second Reading debate that he taught the Minister during his A-levels. I do not know whether the cane—or, as we would say in Scotland, the belt—was still in use at that time and whether he had to use it on the Minister. I hope that I do not have to use it on the Minister tonight should he reject our position, and that we can, instead, reach agreement.
      New clause 1 contains the last major issue that we must tackle in the Bill. If we accept the principle of an advisory committee, we will send out the right message to the wider scientific community. It would be warmly welcomed and greatly appreciated and received, and it would ensure full co-operation on the convention across the full range of scientific opinion in this country. An advisory committee would also, importantly, conclude the arguments about transparency and accountability in relation to the Bill.
      Mr. Key: On the face of it, the new clause is tempting. The Minister will recall that shortly before midnight last night I was discussing it with him and trying to persuade him of some of its merits.
      436
      Before I explain why I have concluded that it would not be sensible to accept the new clause, I must express my gratitude to the Royal Society of Chemistry. Were it not for that society, we would scarcely have had any briefing and we would have had an extremely short debate today. I wish to make a serious plea to the scientific community of this country to recognise their interest in legislation that passes through the House. It is extraordinary that we had to rely so heavily on the Royal Society of Chemistry. We have not received anything—at least I have not—from the Chemical Industries Association in the way of briefing.
      I say that the Royal Society of Chemistry has been briefing us, but it was in fact one man—a very talented man—who has been briefing us on behalf of the society. The briefings from other organisations—the science policy research unit at Sussex university and the international security information service-have come from one and the same man. That one gentleman has been quoted extensively in the briefing of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
      I have managed to identify three scientists in this country responsible for briefing Parliament on the Bill. They are excellent scientists who have done us a great service. We receive criticism from the scientific community for not taking them seriously, but they could have given Parliament a better briefing.
      Mr. Dalyell: A number of people in the scientific community say that the man in question, Dr. Julian Perry Robinson, who has spent 30 years of his life studying the problems, knows more about them than anyone else. If members of the scientific community think that one of their colleagues knows more about the subject, it is in their nature to say, "Get your advice from those who know most." There is nothing dishonourable or lazy about that.
      Mr. Key: I have not suggested that, nor would I suggest that Nicholas Sims or Mr. Benn is any less distinguished. That is not the point. I would have expected more briefing on such a delicate subject—I shall leave the matter there.
      When we discuss the new clause, I suspect that we are really talking about transparency and public confidence, which must be the two key issues. I think that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is seeking to establish that. If we had not had an annual statutory report, we would have needed some sort of advisory committee. Now that the Government have given us that statutory report, which is to be laid before both Houses and is to report to Parliament on the operation of the Act, we do not need the new clause. The new clause demands not a report on the workings of the Act or the convention but on the performance of the advisory committee's function. That would be bureaucratic, expensive and unnecessary.
      I thought that we might have a small advisory committee because in July the Government announced, through the Ministry of Defence, that they would set up an animal welfare advisory committee to look into much of the work that is done at Porton Down and elsewhere within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I thought that it might be a good model—it has only three independent members and is an important, tight, little advisory committee. But then I realised that the fourth term of reference of that committee stated that the

      437
      committee's function was not to monitor the Act—the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—but to monitor other committees, to monitor ethics, to monitor evidence on the reduction of the use of animals, to monitor statistics, to review training and education of DERA personnel, to review initiatives and to maintain high standards of animal welfare. Therefore, the committee's function was quite different and could not easily be read across to the Bill.
      New clause 1 would clearly require a large committee. The hon. Member for East Kilbride should realise that establishing the sort of committee that he wants would require a large bureaucracy and be expensive. It would be a large committee, representative of all the interests. The compliance cost assessment of the DTI quotes the Chemical Industries Association as saying that there would be up to 2,000 plants to be declared twice a year. If the committee were to look at each of those plants twice a year, it would have to be a large committee, working full time. If I have correctly understood what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I cannot see it working.
      Mr. Dalyell: I did ask the Minister about generic testing.
      Mr. Key: I will allow the Minister to give his own answer, if I may.
      One of the main reasons why I regard the new clause as unworkable is confidentiality. We know that industrial espionage is rife on an international scale and is a significant problem. Confidentiality is crucial, and it is an international issue in the convention. It is not only a matter for this Parliament.
      The excellent Royal Society of Chemistry, in its excellent briefing, which I shall now quote, if I may, to the Committee, spoke of the chemical industries negotiating with the Department of Trade and Industry. It said:
      "The key to their accepting it was express recognition by the negotiators that the industry's intellectual property, which was often the product of great investment in research and development, would need to be safeguarded against abuse of site inspections and other controls … The bias towards secrecy which this device imposes on many of the operators of the treaty stands in contrast to the transparency mechanisms which the treaty in its domestic implementation also require. This, however, was the price which had to be paid for creating conditions within which the chemical industry would be willing to co-operate.
      So huge is the chemical industry and so multipurpose its facilities and feedstocks that there was never any real alternative to cooperation. If there were one, it would have had to be a control regime for chemical industry in which whole areas of chemical technology were subjected to prohibition and repressive surveillance."
      That is terribly significant, and that is one reason why we cannot accept new clause 1.
      8 pm
      I wish to make one more argument—the argument to which I referred when I said that some of the advice that we had been given was flawed. It has been suggested in some of our briefing that the Bill—and the end of chemical weapons, which we hope will occur—is compromised by the constitutional, legal and commercial position of the Chemical and Biological Defence
      438
      Establishment, Porton Down. I believe that that is simply not the case. ISIS briefing paper No. 48 has, I believe, mistaken that position.
      I wish that people would not speak about "Porton". There is a large civilian community in the village of Porton. There are two distinct scientific establishments there—the CBDE and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, sponsored by the Department of Health. On behalf of my constituents, who work at both, I draw attention to the fact that they are different. I ask people please not to confuse them.
      ISIS asks, where is the assurance that Porton, part of the next steps agency, will in future provide the Department of Trade and Industry with the assistance that it requires for the convention? ISIS alleges that assistance would be "of course" a public service, but then it declares that that would have to be
      "paid for out of someone's budget".
      To make that happen, ISIS suggests that further legislation might be necessary, even in the Bill. Let me try to explain why that argument is flawed and try to allay those fears.
      The assurance that ISIS seeks may be found in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency framework document. Every member of the staff at CBDE Porton Down is a civil servant attached to the Ministry of Defence and, through their Ministers, is accountable to the House. The activities of the agency are determined in that framework document, which is published.
      CBDE operates with a trading fund. That does not mean that it tries to rob Peter to pay Paul, nor does it equate to private sector accounting. A trading fund is a discipline and a mechanism to introduce to the public sector the rigours of private sector budgeting, accounting and management. I believe that, together, the framework document and the trading fund encourage just the type of transparency that we all seek.
      Mr. Ingram: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Can he confirm that the CBDE has advisory committees, and that those advisory committees work successfully alongside CBDE? We seek in new clause 1 something analogous and similar to that, using the expertise from CBDE to assist the DTI as a national authority.
      Mr. Key: I have sought the advice of CBDE about advisory committees, and it is beset with advisory committees. Not only does it have advisory committees for the DERA establishments, but it told me that the international bureaucracy from The Hague will be very substantial. CBDE will spend its time coping with the international bureaucracy in The Hague and inspecting other nations, because we happen to be the best in the world at doing that. If we, on top of that, impose more committees to oversee the work of the committee that must look after them, it becomes absurd. I believe that CBDE will not be able to do its job properly as a result.
      As for public confidence, which is so important, my constituents would wish to assist the Department of Trade and Industry under the legislation. Ever since CBDE was established, in the early part of the century, its mission has remained the same. It exists to provide the best scientific advice to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom from chemical and biological weapons and it will continue to do that, with or without another committee and whether it is regulatory or advisory.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman railed against extra committees, but I would not have bothered to interrupt

      439
      him had he not been a member of the Medical Research Council—a lucky Member to be so, because it is a very important organisation. It has endless committees, because, if one is to have peer group monitoring, one must have all sorts of sub-specialist committees. If I may say so, it is a little glib to rail against committees which, as the hon. Gentleman should know from his Medical Research Council experience, provide proper peer group control.
      Mr. Key: It was a huge honour to be a member of the Medical Research Council and I did not enjoy the day when I had to leave it because I was invited to form—to join—the Government of Margaret Thatcher. [Interruption.] Would that I had been invited to form the Government.
      However, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in that we are talking not about sub-specialist committees but about independent outsiders coming in to oversee the work. They are not comparable with the Medical Research Council's committees. Incidentally, it is possible to find scientists working in the Medical Research Council in their various projects who would have said how strongly they believed that all those committees were thoroughly overdone. Nevertheless, let us not argue, because I am trying to come to a conclusion.
      The CBDE advises the Government. Ministers are responsible to the House for that advice, and for the work of the national authority, under the legislation. I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
      Mr. Dalyell: First, I am overcome by the nerve gas of curiosity to know what was the other occasion in 25 years. Perhaps someone from the Box would come up with the answer to that.
      I shall advance one serious argument. Julian Perry Robinson—we should all acknowledge our intellectual debt to a man who has worked for 30 years on that subject—argued time and again that what was important was that the institution should be able to cope with the new chemicals that were being developed every year. I return to the example—heaven help us—of the VX that, I am told by Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford, has been developed in Iraq, and which is worse than Sarin, as a concrete example of how one has to cope with new chemicals as that field becomes increasingly more dangerous. Coping with innovation may be what the institution should be about.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I shall not speak at length because there is little that I can add to what my hon. Friend and former teacher, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said. He covered the area fully. First, there is nothing in the convention that requires an advisory committee. Secondly, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) mentioned the advisory body for pesticides. Simply because there is an advisory body in one of the myriad areas of Government does not necessarily mean that we must have advisory bodies in every area of Government. It is also fair to say that the advisory body for pesticides relates to a different area in that it relates especially to the public, whereas the chemical weapons advisory body, as I understand it, would not especially relate to the public; it would very specifically relate to a very small, or relatively small, number of experts. As my hon. Friend says, the various advisory bodies relating to the CBDE are non-statutory bodies.
      The problem is that implementing the convention rightly involves a lot of regulation and bureaucracy. But we do not want to over-egg it. That would lead to
      440
      bureaucracy, a lack of flexibility, and it would undoubtedly be expensive. I make it clear that we would expect the regulatory body to take advice as widely and as flexibly as possible. We would not want it just to take advice from a statutory advisory body. We would expect it to seek advice as widely as possibly and would rely particularly on the expertise of organisations such as the CBDE.
      I am sorry that I cannot extend further the spirit of good will and bridge-building which, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride knows, comes difficult to me at the best of times. I have stretched my good will as far as possible by accepting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I am sorry that I cannot accept the new clause.
      Mr. Ingram: I am sorry that the Minister has reverted to type at the tail end of the debate, but he may change his mind at some stage in the future. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and the Minister do not appear to have read the new clause. It says:
      "The Secretary of State shall establish a committee to give advice, either when requested to do so or otherwise on any matters relating to the control of chemical weapons in furthering the general purposes of this Act."
      Therefore, the committee is under the control and direction of the Secretary of State. The new clause continues:
      "the Secretary of State shall appoint the members of the committee",
      and it goes on to detail from where the members of the committee should be drawn.
      Therefore, the new clause leaves everything in the hands of the Secretary of State. It could be a small committee. I do not know why the hon. Member for Salisbury came to the conclusion that it would be a large committee. If the Minister had his way, it would probably be a committee of one and he would be the chairman of it as well. The committee is carefully limited by new clause 1. We are not opening up a whole range of new bureaucracy. The new clause is an attempt to ensure that a committee is available with which the wider scientific community can interface and from which the Government could take appropriate advice. That seems sensible.
      We are dealing with an important area here. I regret the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury in trying to diminish the expert opinion, advice and help that we have received from the Royal Society of Chemistry. Because a document is written by one man does not mean that it is wrong or flawed.
      Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman really is misrepresenting me. He knows that I did not say that. That document contained expert and excellent advice. What I was saying was that we should not talk about being briefed by the Royal Society of Chemistry when we know that we have been briefed by one expert, however expert he may be, and that it was a pity that there were not more people who were sufficiently interested in the Bill.
      Mr. Ingram: It may be that the hon. Gentleman has read only one briefing document and spoken to only one person, if he has spoken to him at all, but I have spoken to many others, not just the person responsible for the one briefing document from the Royal Society of Chemistry. The fact remains that it was produced in the name of the Royal Society of Chemistry and that is what is important.

      441
      That will obviously be taken account of in the other place where there are senior ex-presidents of the society and widely respected scientists who will consider our deliberations on this aspect.
      I suspect that the matter will be debated at length in the other place because it stems from a wide body of opinion; it is not just one man reporting for one organisation. It is a matter of regret that the Minister is not prepared to move further forward on the matter tonight. But having heard what the Minister has said, there is no point in further advancing the argument, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.14 pm
      Mr. Oppenheim: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I use this opportunity to respond briefly to an important point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) relating to generic licensing. I think that he is aware that we expect that the burden of licensing can be reduced for a number of users—perhaps almost all users—using the chemicals for certain purposes, by issuing an open licence up to a certain level. That level is likely to be small, such as 5 g. It would be difficult to issue open licences for larger levels such a 100 g because that would take us outside the convention's requirements to limit schedule 1 chemicals to 1 tonne. However, we are looking at ways in which to issue open licences, particularly in order to ease the burden on the academic community. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk about that at any point in the future, I would be happy to do so.
      Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for that because thereby lies the way to avoiding a nightmare.
      Mr. Oppenheim: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
      I do not want to detain the House because I think that we are all moving in the same direction on this. Once again, we have had a good and interesting debate, as we did on Second Reading. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition for their co-operation. I am sorry that I could not accept all their amendments, but I am grateful for the spirit in which they were moved, and I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for his contributions.
      This is an important Bill. It is important not just for Britain's future but for the future of the globe. Without more ado, I commend it to the House.
      8.16 pm
      Mr. Cohen: I shall not delay the House long, but I want to make an important point. First, I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment and for the assurances that he gave during the Bill's passage in response to my various amendments. I congratulate him on the effective way in which he has steered the Bill
      442
      through the House. He has shown a clear and thoughtful mind on the issues. But having given that bit of praise, I hope that he will not close his mind to some of the changes that might be proposed in the other place in order to make the convention and the Act work properly in due course.
      I want to use this opportunity to make a brief point which I also mentioned on Second Reading, and that concerns how we might contribute to a voluntary assistance fund. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to that, perhaps announcing a figure. The Minister said on Second Reading that that did not need legislation, and that is right, but it is important that that money is up front. It does not need to be a large sum, but it is important that financial considerations should not stop British inspectors going to a site where it is believed that chemical weapons have been used. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
      I agree that this is a treaty of enormous significance, outlawing chemical weapons. I am sure that the House wants to see such weapons eliminated from the face of the world. The next step is for other countries to ratify the convention. I hope that the Government will put pressure on the United States and the Russian federation to ratify it as swiftly as possible and then get many other countries to do so and to comply with its provisions. It institutes a proper programme of inspection and transparency that is very much needed. As I said, I hope that we shall see the elimination of these despicable weapons from the face of the earth.
      8.18 pm
      Mr. Ingram: We have had a useful two days of debate on the Bill, one on Second Reading and one today. On behalf of the Opposition, I reaffirm our support for the Bill which we welcomed on Second Reading.
      We recognise that it is an essential and important measure and we have had some informative debates on its key aspects. I pay tribute again to the Royal Society of Chemistry, Julian Perry Robinson, Alistair Hay of Leeds university and other experts who have provided assistance in the understanding of a complex matter.
      It is important that the United Kingdom should be one of the first 65 signatories to the convention. Our chemical industry is a world leader so it is only proper that we should be one of the leading signatories.
      The Government have moved substantially from their early draft of the Bill and that is to be commended. I regret that the Minister is not prepared to accept the establishment of an advisory committee. Clearly, that will be considered in another place and there may well be a subsequent change. Given the way in which the matter has been handled and addressed in the House, although it is not yet scheduled for debate in another place, it would be useful if the Minister could let us know when the Bill is due to be considered as we are operating within a time scale.
      I conclude by thanking all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debates this evening and on Second Reading. We fully analysed the Bill and that analysis will stand proper examination elsewhere. It is an important aspect of our work in the House. We now wish the Bill speedy progress through the House of Lords.
      8.21 pm
      Mr. Oppenheim: With the leave of the House, I shall

      443
      answer as briefly as possible one or two of the questions that have been raised. The voluntary assistance fund mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is still being argued in The Hague. When a decision has been reached, we shall decide how far we can support it, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be as generous as possible.
      I was asked when was the other occasion in the past 25 years when an Opposition amendment was accepted unamended, but I require more notice of that question.
      I join the Opposition spokesman in thanking the many experts, who I shall not attempt to name, who advised us on the Bill. Their expertise and help has been greatly appreciated. Finally, and possibly most importantly, we hope that progress on the Bill in another place will take place early in the new year. We are as keen as the Opposition to ensure that we ratify the convention, in full, as soon as possible.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  8.22 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
  That the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
  As hon. Members will recall, the passage last month of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 paved the way for a new criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Act provides that a draft of the new scheme must be approved by affirmative resolution of each House. The draft was laid on 16 November and the House's task tonight is to decide whether it should approve it.
  The criminal injuries compensation scheme was introduced in 1964 to provide compensation from public funds for blameless victims of crimes of violence and to those injured in attempting to catch criminals or prevent crime. Payment is made in recognition of the public sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victim.
  Under the current scheme, compensation has been assessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis of common law damages. That requires finely judged assessments of the degree of suffering and financial loss, which tend to make speedy decision taking more difficult. They also make it hard to predict and control the costs of the scheme, which have been rising at an unsustainable rate while, despite the very best efforts of the board, the backlog of unsettled cases has been continuing to rise.
  Against that background, we sought to introduce a new tariff-based scheme in 1994. The scheme moved away from common law damages and provided for payment to be made on the basis of a scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity, with the scale or tariff being based on previous awards made by the board.
  In April this year, however, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that the introduction of the tariff scheme had been unlawful. That judgment related solely to the method of the tariff scheme's introduction, not to its intrinsic merits.
  The ruling necessitated the immediate withdrawal of the tariff scheme and the reinstatement of the former scheme, based on common law damages. It also meant that some applicants were disadvantaged because they would have been treated more generously under the tariff scheme than under the reinstated scheme. They included, for example, some relatives of murder victims.
  The eligibility criteria in fatal cases were wider under the tariff scheme than under the common law damages scheme, allowing long-term unmarried partners of the deceased to qualify for an award, as well as the parents of a child of any age. Under the enforced reinstatement of the common law damages scheme, those applicants lost entitlement to an award—an unfortunate consequence of the withdrawal of the tariff scheme necessitated by the House of Lords' judgment.
  We remain firmly of the view that a tariff-based approach was right. A tariff scheme is easier for victims to understand. It is easier to operate, so applications can be dealt with more quickly. It also enables costs to be controlled and predicted more easily.
  The legal judgment gave us an opportunity to take a fresh look at the tariff approach. In doing so, we took careful note of the criticisms made of the earlier scheme

  445
  in Parliament and elsewhere. We noted in particular the concern that a too simple tariff scheme could have a detrimental effect on those most seriously affected by their injuries.
  When, therefore, we invited Parliament to pass the Bill to give statutory backing to a new tariff scheme we sought to ensure that there were adequate powers to enable a number of significant improvements to be made. Parliament clearly agreed with that approach and the new enhanced tariff scheme proposed under the Act's new powers fully addresses the major points of concern that have been expressed.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: One point that the improved tariff scheme does not address is inflation. The Minister will be aware that common law damages are assessed not as at the time of the accident but at the time of settlement or trial and therefore take inflation fully into account. A degree of interest is added—usually 2 per cent. on personal injury damages. Since the tariff was devised, the award for rape in the civil courts has apparently reached £20,000. Under the tariff scheme, rape awards will be £17,500, so there is already a discrepancy between the tariff and common law damages. Will the Government give an assurance that the tariff will be regularly revised so that it does not lose pace with comparable levels of damages, which are low in the United Kingdom in any event?
  Mr. Maclean: Of course we shall keep the tariff under constant review to allow for inflation and other factors. Without examining the individual example that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given, I remind him that the levels in the proposed scheme are already ahead of inflation.
  When we introduced the tariff scheme, we rounded up the bulk of the figures, which are now set higher than the amounts usually awarded in the courts. In addition, when we built in the new loss of earnings provision for awards over 28 weeks, we did not extract from the tariff scheme, as we could have done, the element that is already included for loss of earnings.
  The awards under the tariff scheme were the common law awards put through the computer to produce an average, which obviously included an element for loss of earnings. Loss of earnings is therefore taken into account in the tariff figures. As we are now introducing an element for loss of earnings over 28 weeks, we could have extracted the loss of earnings proportion from the existing tariffs. We decided not to do so, which shows that we are more than taking care of inflation.
  I shall briefly rehearse the principal features of the new draft scheme. First, all successful claimants will receive a tariff award based on the injury suffered. In addition, in more serious cases, victims will receive extra compensation for loss of earnings and for special care. In fatal cases, payment will additionally be made for loss of dependency—the breadwinner's income—and loss of parental services. Reasonable funeral expenses will continue to be reimbursed.
  We are doubling the upper limit for awards payable under the old tariff scheme from £250,000 to £500,000. We are making provision for recipients of higher value awards to opt for payment through the purchase of
  446
  annuities. These arrangements are generally known as structured settlements. They can provide a stream of index-linked, tax-free payments, thereby considerably increasing the net value of the award.
  There was a provision in the Act to extend the benefit of structured settlements to applicants under the current scheme whose claims have not yet been settled. The complementary change to the current scheme to permit that was made on 8 November, the day on which the Act received Royal Assent. The structured payment scheme has received widespread and warm support from members of the legal profession and from many others.
  We issued a first draft of the new scheme in August. Those who studied it will realise that that was no small task. Given the additional features in the new arrangements—loss of earnings, loss of dependency and care costs, for example—we had to make it clear, in language understandable to the layman, exactly what was meant by the rather imprecise terms to which I have referred and what would therefore qualify under the enhanced tariff scheme and what would not. That is why the new draft scheme has, of necessity, to be rather longer and more detailed than any of its predecessors.
  The first draft of the new scheme was circulated widely to Members of both Houses and to interested individuals and organisations, including the police, representative organisations, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Victim Support, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Trades Union Congress, the Bar Council and the Law Society, as well as to equivalent bodies in Scotland and to many others.
  We had meetings with many of these organisations to discuss the proposals. We received much useful feedback in writing. The draft helped to inform debate during the Bill's consideration in another place where, as a result, discussion focused not so much on the Bill's provisions but on the terms of the draft scheme. That, too, gave us some useful feedback.
  In the light of that wide and most useful consultation exercise we made numerous changes to the draft scheme. Among the most significant, perhaps, were the achievement of greater consistency in the terminology used throughout the draft scheme, the inclusion of a table of contents, the more logical presentation of the scheme's provisions, the clarification of the criteria for waiving time limits and provisions relating to loss of income, the cost of special care in fatal injury awards and appeals.
  We circulated the revised version of the draft scheme on 1 November, in time to inform debate during the final stages of the Bill. That enabled Parliament to complete its consideration of the Bill in the full knowledge of the detailed terms of the scheme that would subsequently be proposed under the Bill's provisions.
  In our view, the new draft represented a significant improvement on the earlier one. I am glad to be able to tell the House that that view seems to have been shared generally. We received little additional feedback, and most of that was in the nature of seeking clarification or suggesting minor amendments to small or technical points of detail. That feedback, however, helped us to make one or two minor changes to the draft scheme in the interest of clarity and to ensure that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed. Essentially, the draft scheme that is before the House is the same as the one which was circulated last

  447
  month, which Parliament had an opportunity to consider before it passed what became the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.
  The draft scheme now before us accordingly gives effect to Parliament's wishes as expressed in the Act. It puts the necessary flesh on the bones of that Act and spells out clearly and unambiguously who can qualify for an award, how that award will be assessed and paid and how dissatisfied claimants may appeal. It makes the administration clear and sets out the line of accountability.
  Once the draft scheme has been approved and the scheme is established, the Act makes it clear that any subsequent change will require parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure if the change affects a key feature of the scheme, and under the negative procedure if the change relates to a more minor feature. Thus it is Parliament rather than the Executive that will always have the final say over each and every provision of the new tariff scheme.
  We believe that the draft new scheme provides the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of the taxpayer. It has the benefits of a tariff-based approach, which will enable most claimants to receive their money more quickly without undue fuss. It will ensure also that the more seriously injured are generously catered for by payments for loss of earnings, the costs of special care and for structured settlements. It will remain a generous scheme. I remind the House that it is by far the most generous scheme of its sort anywhere in the world. Accordingly, I commend the draft scheme to the House.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The Minister has reminded us of the background to the statutory instrument from a view favourable to the Government's approach. The background to the statutory instrument was legislation that cut £700 million from the cash available to compensate victims of violent crime. We opposed that legislation vigorously from its earliest stages.
  The Minister says that costs under the scheme were rising to an unsustainable level, but it is crime that has risen to an unsustainable level under the Government. That has led to increased costs in providing compensation.
  The Minister said with some satisfaction that Parliament will decide on the features of the scheme as well as on the tariff, having ruled on the primary legislation. It is only fair to say that those are three steps towards which we pulled the Government over a considerable period.
  Initially—the Minister glossed over this—the Home Secretary sought to act illegally by introducing a new scheme without any accountability to the House or to another place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was found to have acted illegally. We insisted that there should be a proper affirmative procedure for the scheme and for the tariff. We won those concessions along the way. That is the background to the statutory instrument.
  We should also remember that we are agreeing to the introduction of a scheme that will affect some of those who have been most damaged by some of the nastiest crimes. People will be affected by our decisions. There is still confusion and added pain for many victims because of the way in which these matters have been handled. There are still some anomalies for the Government to
  448
  resolve. I hope that the Minister will listen and in developing the scheme further, or in making later amendments, will take account of some of the issues that are still outstanding.
  In answer to a parliamentary question last week the Minister made clear how some people have been disadvantaged because the new scheme, which the Government introduced illegally, made allowance for payments to the relatives of murder victims. When that provision was changed that opportunity for compensation was lost. That compensation will be available again, of course, when the new scheme comes into force, but there will be a gap. Some people will receive compensation under the Government's replacement scheme, but there will be a period during which people in the same circumstances will not receive compensation.
  I asked the Minister last week if he would make it his policy to allow the families of murder victims, parents of adult victims, the adult children of murder victims, the unmarried partners of murder victims and the fathers of illegitimate murder victims who apply for compensation under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation, announced in 1994 and subsequently withdrawn, to make a new application under the terms of the new scheme that he proposes to implement from April 1996.
  The Minister responded by saying that he was not willing to do so, and said:
  "To allow applicants in any particular category to withdraw a claim lodged between 1 April 1994 and 5 April 1995 and then reapply under the proposed new scheme would be wrong in principle and anomalous in practice."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 652.]
  The fact is that we are trying to deal with a situation where some people, because of the ham-fisted way in which the original legislation was introduced, have lost out, and will lose out unless some mechanism is found to address that problem.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman mentioned certain categories of victim and asked me to try to make a special exception in those cases, which I think would be anomalous. Why does he limit his demand to those categories of victim? What about all the others who have suffered other injuries but are caught in the same trap as a result of the House of Lords judgment?
  Mr. Michael: They are caught as a result not of the House of Lords judgment but of the Secretary of State introducing changes under an illegal mechanism and then trying to avoid accountability to the House. That was the source of the problem, so let us not have the House of Lords or those who uphold the law blamed for the errors that were made by the Home Secretary. I suggest that he is the source of the anomaly that affects those people, who feel tremendously damaged by it.
  We are talking about a specific category and a specific set of injuries. Last week, the Minister said:
  "A total of 1,192 fatal applications were outstanding when the tariff scheme—
  the original scheme—
  was withdrawn. About a third were from a parent or parents, some 30 per cent. were in respect of children under 18 years of age, about 20 per cent. were from children aged 18 or over, and some 15 per cent. were from spouses, whether formally married or regarded as a spouse in common law.—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 654.]

  449
  I shall not go into the detail of the Minister's replies, but it is important that when he gave an assessment he put a top ceiling at some £5 million and gave a more realistic estimate of between £1.5 million and £2.5 million as the total cost to correct the anomaly. I appeal to the Minister—he will know that people feel tremendously injured and damaged by the anomaly and that those affected by the most horrendous crimes feel very personally the hurt that has been done to them—to be generous in dealing with this anomaly. Surely, if there are individuals who would have been the recipients of compensation, as a result of a relative being murdered, under the interim scheme, which was found to be illegal, and who would receive compensation again after 1 April under the new scheme—[Interruption.]—it would be wrong for us not to fill that gap and to—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be indulgent and allow the hon. Gentleman to take his call and then resume his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Certainly not. I have noticed many times recently that such electronic equipment seems to be operating in here, and it is not good for debate.
  Mr. Michael: I accept that and apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an electronic brain, not a means of communication.
  The Minister has an opportunity to put matters right for the individuals who have suffered the worst pain—bereavement—and it would surely be just and generous if he— [finterruptionj I am sorry, but may I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) that we are talking about the victims of bereavement, and that it is a most serious item?
  It would be both just and generous if the Minister found a means of correcting the anomaly. I believe that he thinks that he does not have the powers to do so. Obviously, we have not seen the legal advice that he has been given, but a Home Secretary who sought to achieve injustice through the misuse of prerogative powers should surely have no hesitation in taking a risk for justice. If there is a doubt, let him introduce legislation to put matters right. Opposition Members are prepared to ensure that the legislation is not obstructed and goes through the House quickly to correct the anomaly.
  If the Minister is unwilling to use Government time—it would allow him to take credit for setting right the anomaly, which has been highlighted most strongly by organisations that represent the victims of crime, and by Victim Support in particular—I have spoken to one of my hon. Friends who has secured a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and he has expressed a willingness to introduce a Bill under that system if the Minister and the Government will give an undertaking to allow it a smooth and swift passage. In that way, co-operation across the Chamber could achieve what the Minister must surely accept as justice and correct an anomaly that would otherwise continue to cause pain to the individuals involved.
  We welcome the introduction of a tariff system to simplify the process of decision making and to speed it up. Many victims have wanted a decision quickly and not to have reminders of their suffering over an extended period, but there are still problems with the scheme and the tariff: for example, some settlements will be less
  450
  generous than under the previous common law system; there is a less personal assessment in circumstances where more serious injury or damage may be involved; and payments for loss of earnings, which was a concession wrung from the Government, are still not generous and leave a considerable gap.
  We are asked today to confirm the Home Secretary's proposed scheme, including the tariff that goes with it. I stress that the Minister almost suggested that the Government had gone away, during the minor delay that was caused by the Lords' ruling, and generously considered ways to improve the scheme. It has been a long, drawn-out procedure. I give the Minister credit for the fact that he was willing to publish his draft scheme at an early stage and allow it to be discussed in Committee. That is right, and it is only fair to acknowledge that he was willing to do that, and therefore enter into debate. It is also true that during discussions he has moved his position. As that is somewhat unusual, I pay tribute to him for doing so. On occasions, it has been like extracting teeth from a dinosaur, and there are still improvements that could be made. Concerns have still not been addressed. There are still problems to be overcome, and we hope that the Minister will acknowledge that aspects of the scheme can be improved in future.
  Some of the remaining flaws will have to be dealt with by changes in the future, but others concern undertakings given by the Minister or lack of clarity on specific points within the scheme and the tariff. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, where possible, such issues will be dealt with in the guide, which is to be published by the criminal injuries compensation authority, so that there is clarity and so that anything that is unclear is avoided? Some of the issues are matters of detail, but I wish to touch on some of the points, and I hope that the Minister will agree to continue to listen to the points that are being made and seek to provide clarification.
  Will he draw the attention of the authority to these points and ask it to provide a positive response within the guide? It is clear that major concessions have been made, and when compared to the unlawful tariff, provision for loss of earnings, dependency in fatal cases, care costs and structured settlements are areas where there has been an improvement.
  There are other anomalies in the scheme—in paragraph 38(c) in particular, where reference is made to the children of murder victims. It refers to
  "a child of the deceased, whether or not the natural child, provided that he was accepted by the deceased as a child of his family or was dependent on him."
  The same anomaly may arise in other places, but the definition of a child is a person under the age of 18. It is quite clear from what has been said by the Minister at various times and from the scheme that it is meant to apply not only to children under 18 but to the adult children of murder victims, and murder victims above the age of 18. If that is so, and if the Minister agrees, will he record his agreement and arrange for it to be covered in the guidance so that there is no anomaly? The intention is clear, but more clarification is needed.
  The provision for structured settlement in paragraph 52 is welcome, but, even if structured annuity payments are made on a tax-free basis, it is improbable that the amount likely to be generated by an award of £500,000 will be sufficient to make adequate provision for the more seriously injured—for instance, those suffering from major paralysis or severe brain damage.

  451
  Structured settlements are also to be voluntary. The Government have accepted the need to permit structural settlements for awards being processed under the common law schemes, but that has not yet been finalised. An amendment to the common law scheme to permit that in cases that are not finalised is expected. When will that amendment be made? The Minister gave us an undertaking when we discussed the matter in Committee. Does he intend the provisions to apply only from 1 April, when the new scheme is introduced, or will he agree to its operation immediately after the House has approved the subsidiary legislation that we are considering?
  Surely there is no reason for delay, but I suggest to the Minister that some cases may be delayed to hit the date of 1 April if it is not agreed that structured settlements can be allowed under the old common law system, effectively from today.
  Speed of decision making is supposed to be one of the important elements that follow the introduction of the tariff system. It does not seem that, in its year of operation, the original tariff system operated more quickly than the original common law scheme: I believe that, of 66,387 cases lodged, only 11,076 were determined—16.7 per cent.—compared with the resolution of 70 per cent. of cases under the last full year of the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That figure comes from the board's annual report. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that there is proper monitoring, and that targets relating to speed of decision making are met under the new tariff system?
  The loss of parental services in fatal cases also requires more attention. Will the Minister give an undertaking to re-examine the evidence with which he has been provided by a variety of sources?
  The eligibility rules were debated in Committee. The scheme set a two-year limitation period. The Minister will recall that we wanted a three-year period. The time limit runs from the date of the incident, irrespective of the age of the victim, the nature of the injury or the extent of the victim's knowledge. The three-year period is very important for many victims, particularly those who are suffering from psychological injuries or who are the victims of sexual violence, especially children. Many such claimants do not feel able to make a claim in the immediate period after the incident in which they suffered injury. The Minister has allowed some flexibility in regard to applications that are made outside the time limit. Will he give an undertaking to monitor the position carefully, and to consider, in due course, extending that period from two to three years?
  We are also worried by the more restrictive qualification rules in the tariff—for instance, for firefighters, who under the 1994 scheme had to show that they were taking an exceptional risk at the time of suffering accidental injury in fighting "arson" fires, an additional qualification beyond that required under the previous common law scheme. That requirement is to continue. The "exceptional risk" exclusion will prevent most firefighters who sustain injury in "arson" fires from recovering compensation—unless, for example, they enter a burning building to effect a rescue. The "exceptional risk" rule also potentially excludes citizens who suffer accidental injury in trying to catch offenders or prevent offences, or in helping police officers to do so—or, indeed, in helping firefighters to deal with "arson" fires.
  452
  Those aspects still give rise to concern. We do not believe that the passing of the measure should be delayed for that reason, but we hope that, where possible, the Minister will be generous in his guidance, and will undertake to monitor the position as time goes on.
  One of the most difficult aspects is that of psychological injury. Victims who suffer mental injury alone, without physical injury, are subject to requirements that are basically similar to those applied by the courts in common law damages claims, although there are some differences. I understand that those requirements are very narrow, and the common law is currently the subject of review by the Law Commission. Will the Minister undertake to reflect on any recommendations made by the Law Commission in regard to the general principles applying to psychological injury? Obviously, he cannot anticipate the findings of the Law Commission, but will he at least consider the implications of the recommendations and, if appropriate, amendments to the scheme?
  I referred to exceptional injury. With one exception, the scheme makes no provision for rescuers, who are now excluded but were not under the common law scheme. Professional rescuers, such as firefighters, police officers or unpaid rescuers—for instance, first-aiders or moors or mountain rescue teams, who provide a tremendous service—will receive compensation only if related to the primary victim of the offence. Simply witnessing the offence or its aftermath will no longer be sufficient.
  It is easy to envisage circumstances in which problems could arise. Following a horrific incident such as a murder, people will be involved in the search for what turns out to be a body. I am sure that the Minister accepts that, in some instances, considerable damage can be done. Under the old common law system such experiences would have led to compensation, but that will not apply under the new scheme. Again, will the Minister be as generous as possible in his guidance, and undertake to monitor the possible exposure of anomalies?
  The only exception to the rule that I have mentioned applies to railway staff who deal with the immediate aftermath of a railway suicide or attempted suicide. They have been treated as a special case. I do not argue with that, but other special cases are specifically excluded.
  There are alternatives to the way in which the tariff has been introduced. I do not intend to go into them now, because they have already been put to the Minister, but I hope that the tariff will be monitored and that the detailed alternatives that have been urged on him will be considered in the future.
  Certain special cases, although not large in number, are extremely difficult to value and perhaps should have been excluded from the tariff to permit individual assessment — children's cases generally, for which there were more than 7,000 claims, and cases involving, for example, child sex abuse, for which there were only 3,437 claims in 1993-94, psychological injury, sexual assault or scarring.
  The other special case is the victim of rape who gives birth to a child whom she intends to keep. She will receive a fixed amount up to £5,000. The Government have not, however, recognised that any woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape should have an additional sum, whether she gives birth to a child who is adopted, miscarriages or has an abortion. In those three cases, she receives nothing. That seems to be an anomaly and I hope

  453
  that the Minister will maintain an open mind and consider ways of changing that in future if there is no scope for change now.
  The other point about multiple injuries was made clear during a debate in the other place, when Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said:
  "there are two major injuries which of their nature are likely to be totally distinct. For example, to take level 12 in the tariff, it seems very hard to say that the person who is partially permanently blind in one eye and at the same time has a fracture of both femurs should receive only 10 per cent. of what would be reasonable compensation for the fracture of both femurs. The fact is, such an injury will be just as grave to him"—
  or her—
  "whether or not he has been partially blinded in the same attack."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1384-5.]
  That is an example of the anomalies that exist in the tariff.
  Inflation was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and it is a major cause for concern. There is no specific commitment to an annual uprating of the tariff to take account of inflation. The common law scheme, working to similar compensation rules as the courts, took into account inflation's effects and developments generally in the law of damages. I hope that the Minister will clarify that position and give an undertaking on the way in which the Government will deal with uprating due to inflation. By the time that the tariff comes to be reviewed in April 1999, the 1994 figures could still be in operation and would be well out of date by some seven or eight years.
  It is a major concession by the Government that loss of earnings is covered at all in the scheme, but hardship is likely to be experienced by people who suffer loss of earnings for periods of up to 28 weeks. No provision is made for them in the scheme because reliance is placed on existing statutory sick pay entitlements. Although many employers make provision for contractual sick pay, many do not. The people who will suffer most will generally be those in low-paid employment whose terms of employment often have little or no contractual sick pay provision beyond statutory sick pay.
  Such people are often in high-risk occupations—for example, take-away catering. Self-employed people such as taxi drivers who do not receive statutory sick pay will lose out altogether for that period. The position could be even worse for shopkeepers or sub-postmasters and mistresses. They may have to pay locum managers to run their businesses, thus losing income and incurring additional unrecoverable expenditure.
  Those who have had a prolonged period of sickness before the criminal injury may have exhausted their statutory sick pay entitlement. That applies particularly where there is repeat victimisation. In the categories that I have mentioned, a victim can become a victim on a subsequent occasion. Where that happens, there could be considerable loss. Many people are likely to be affected by that anomaly.
  The House of Commons Library has estimated that up to 12 million people could be excluded by the 28-week rule. There are 3 million self-employed people, 3 million people below the lower earnings limit, 1 million people on short-term or temporary contracts, 2 million people
  454
  who work for employers with no sick-pay scheme and about 3 million people who do not qualify as they have not worked for their employers for long enough.
  The Minister accepted at a late stage that loss of pension rights should be provided for, as in paragraph 31(c). It seems that the calculation of such rights will generally be similar to the old common law scheme. Will he confirm that that is so?
  Problems arise from the definitions that care costs will no longer include "loss of services" claims, under which the common law entitlement compensated victims who are disabled from tasks about the home, such as decorating and gardening, for the performance of which tasks they now need to pay others. Will the Minister clarify that position?
  A number of detailed anomalies arise under this scheme. It is perhaps inevitable that there should be some. I hope, however, that the Minister will be willing to undertake to continue to listen, to discuss and to take representations to take account of the difficulties that we have raised with him, either in Committee or in this short debate tonight, and to ensure that the new scheme is as effective as possible.
  The Government announced on Report that performance targets for the administration of the new scheme will be set and that a complaints procedure will be instituted. The parliamentary ombudsman will not be able to investigate individual decisions but will be able to investigate administrative functions of the scheme. I hope that the details about that will be contained in the advice so that they are clearly available to those who seek information about the scheme.
  It is clear that the Minister has listened to our debates and that progress has been made, but there are still anomalies and difficulties, some of which I have tried to cover and others that will be extremely difficult and damaging to individuals. Irrespective of statistics, we must not forget that it is individuals who receive compensation as a result of becoming the victims of violent crime.
  It is rather sad that the Home Secretary's approach to the issue is an attempt to save money at the expense of victims of crime. Many victims will suffer as a result, although there will be benefits from the tariff scheme. In some ways the Government are making victims of the most horrific and damaging injuries pay for the Government's failure to stem the increase in crime and particularly in violent crime. Instead of cutting crime, the Government have cut the help that is available to victims.
  With some cheers, but with some remaining concerns, we examine the statutory instrument, which, of course, we cannot amend but can only accept or reject. We shall certainly not vote against it because we want the new scheme to be as clear as it can be and to come into operation as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will undertake to clarify as many as possible of those remaining areas of doubt and that in future he will listen to suggestions about where improvement is needed for future statutory instruments.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: There is a slight danger that the Minister will escape from the debate covered in plaudits and with a small halo, suggesting that

  455
  the Government have achieved a great success in improving the lot of victims of crime. We should not forget the history of the scheme. Under it, as compared with the old non-statutory scheme, victims of crime will receive less money from the Government than they received before.
  In the past, victims of crime received, broadly speaking, damages that they would have received in a civil court, taking into account all the elements that form the sophisticated law of damages that applies in a civil court. There has been a significant reduction, and it is quite clear that the sole purpose of the introduction of the scheme and its fated unlawful predecessor, the original tariff scheme, is to cut public spending.
  The Library's best estimate is that, in the next financial year, there will be a saving of £200 million. That money is a reduction in what would have been payable to the victims of crime. For that reason, it comes ill from the Government to attempt to earn too much praise for what they have done for the victims of crime. The reduction shows that the Government have hardly striven to achieve greater justice for those victims.
  We must not forget that the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to this new improved tariff scheme. Its history includes the resignation of Martin Thomas QC, a distinguished practitioner on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It includes complex proceedings for judicial review related to the use of the royal prerogative in unpredictable legal territory. It includes judges intervening, for which they are now being criticised. The Government do not seem to like judges upholding the constitutional rights of British citizens.
  The history of the scheme includes having to abandon one that was extremely ungenerous and that would have created much greater unfairness for victims of crime than the present scheme. It also includes the anomalies that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Those have been well highlighted by Victim Support, and are well documented.
  The cost of rectifying those anomalies is small, as the hon. Gentleman said. I am very surprised that the Government, who seek to support victims of crime, or at least say that they seek to support victims of crime, are not prepared to pay up between £2.6 million and £5 million in order to redress what is seen—at least by many people—as an injustice.
  Of course I appreciate that the whole area of awarding damages for bereavement is difficult—because it cannot be measured by compensation—and that the compensation paid for bereavement in civil cases is very small; nothing more than a token to recognise the feelings of bereavement suffered by the bereaved. It is therefore very disappointing that the Government have not been able to share those feelings of people who have been caught in what was a very small time trap—which, as has been said, could have been dealt with very quickly.
  It is a disappointment, too, that so few Members are in the House to speak on such an important issue. I understand, however, that tonight is a big night for the Labour party. I believe that it has a greyhound meeting , which has attracted many of its Members. However, to suggest that new Labour has gone to the dogs would not be—perhaps—terribly fair.
  To return to the motion, I raised with the Minister in an intervention the issue of inflation. I ask him to bear in mind closely the point that I made. Civil courts have
  456
  always been able to award damages that are the right valuation at the time. Inflation in the civil courts has never been anything more than realistic. If one looks, as I have professionally, over the years at the way in which damages have developed, one sees that sometimes the courts have fallen behind inflation and then caught up later. But when particular types of injuries have been awarded in jerks, rather than in a steady rise to reflect inflation, injustice has occasionally occurred.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Given the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience in criminal practice and his work as a recorder, and given the new rules in the House about paid advocacy, has he taken the opportunity to discuss his involvement in this sort of debate with the new Commissioner for Standards?
  Mr. Carlile: I have certainly not discussed with the Commissioner for Standards my involvement in this debate, nor would I. What I am doing now falls plainly within the rules.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: He is not initiating anything.
  Mr. Carlile: I am not initiating anything; I am not advocating anything, except improvement of the law. That is what I am elected to do. I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that if we are to be barred from speaking in the House on matters on which we happen to be reasonably expert, we have reached a poor pass in parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Simon Burns (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): You voted for it.
  Mr. Carlile: Someone who is usually silent in this House said from a sedentary position that I voted for it. I certainly did not vote—nor did any of my right hon. or hon. Friends—to bar Members from speaking on matters on which they have professional and working expertise.
  Mr. Rooker: The rules do not do that.
  Mr. Carlile: If anybody is under the illusion that the new rules do that, they are wrong, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has just reflected, with all his experience and knowledge of parliamentary procedure.
  To return to the point, we want this tariff scheme to work. It is important for the criminal justice scheme that it should work. It is important for the reputation of the House that the scheme should work. Therefore, it is very important that we should be given more than a vague commitment by the Minister that inflation will be taken into account by uprating the tariff regularly. It is bad enough to be a victim of crime, but it would be unforgivable if victims of crime were also made the victims of public spending cuts. We need the clearest of commitments on those issues.
  I hope that the scheme will work. I hope, however, that the Minister will recognise that—many, many reasons have been given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—if further anomalies arise, the Government should be willing to address them. I trust that an element of flexibility will be applied over the years to the new scheme, which will mean that victims of crime will still be able to obtain justice for their injuries.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Maclean: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a short but interesting debate. I shall deal first with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about inflation. Of course we are committed to reviewing the scheme regularly. We want to keep all its aspects under constant review, and we acknowledge the need to take inflation into account. It would be politically unsustainable for any Government, of any colour, to run such a scheme without reviewing it for inflation — especially if inflation under another Government were to rise a great deal faster than at present.
  Labour Members raised the issue of the treatment of fatal cases. I want to take a few minutes to make it absolutely clear what the position was and is. Under the common law damages scheme—the old 1990 scheme—compensation for dependants or relatives of those fatally injured was and is assessed in accordance with the Fatal Accidents Act and allied legislation. That produced some anomalies. For instance, the father of an illegitimate child could receive no award for bereavement, nor could parents when their child was over the age of 18 when killed.
  As the whole House knows and agrees, death by accident is always a tragedy. In the light of the cases that arose under the 1990 scheme, we—this Government, who have been reprimanded by some hon. Members tonight—became convinced that there was a case for treating the families of homicide victims rather differently from the position under the Fatal Accidents Act.
  Thus, when we devised the interim tariff scheme, we made it possible for the first time for parents and a spouse, whether or not common law, and the children, of any age, of a homicide victim to qualify for a share of the new fatal award of —10,000, which had replaced the common law damages scheme award for loss of dependency, loss of support, and bereavement.
  We estimated that the change would result in more than 80 per cent. of claimants in fatal cases receiving more money than they would have done under the 1990 scheme. The enforced withdrawal of the 1994 tariff scheme and the reinstatement—as had to be done—of the 1990 scheme meant that the more restrictive eligibility criteria of the 1990 scheme had to be applied once more.
  I wish that people had recognised that the interim tariff scheme that we introduced in certain areas was considerably more generous than the old scheme. It meant that those categories of relatives or dependants who had, for the first time ever under our proposals, become eligible for an award under the tariff scheme were unfortunately no longer eligible.
  We have considerable sympathy for such claimants. The fact that they cannot now qualify for an award is an unfortunate consequence of the withdrawal of the 1994 tariff scheme, necessitated by the House of Lords judgment. Nevertheless, we still think that it is right that such categories of claimants should be able to qualify for a fatal award.
  Thus, under the new tariff scheme before us today, the eligibility criteria for fatal cases are the same as they were under the earlier tariff scheme. Once the new scheme is
  458
  introduced, such people will be eligible for a fatal award of £5,000—or £10,000 if there is only one qualifying claimant. In addition, under the new tariff scheme there will also be payment for loss of dependency—that is, reliance on the breadwinner's income—and loss of parental support.
  I must tell the House that there is nothing that we can reasonably do for those who would have been eligible under the 1994 tariff scheme and who would again be eligible under the 1996 scheme, but who have been rendered ineligible by the enforced reinstatement of the old scheme. Applications must, in equity, be considered under the terms of the scheme in force at the time of application.
  That means that, because the 1994 scheme was ruled ineligible, the cases to which I have just referred have to be dealt with under the 1990 scheme. It is not possible to treat such applicants as a special case, and allow them a payment under our more generous 1994 tariff scheme, or let them reapply under the generous 1996 tariff scheme. That would be wrong in principle, and anomalous in practice.
  Let us not forget that between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of applicants would have been better off under the 1994 tariff scheme than under the reinstated 1990 scheme. We cannot move to a situation in which any group of claimants—however strongly they may feel— are allowed to pick and choose their claim under whichever scheme they think would be the most advantageous for them.
  Mr. Michael: I have been following the Minister's argument with care. If the House of Commons recognises not the loudness of the voices of those who argue that there is an anomaly, but that there is a case of injustice to be met, why cannot the House decide to correct that anomaly? Surely it is right that the House has such powers, and surely it is right that that can be done retrospectively. Many other measures have been carried out retrospectively by the Government, so all that is needed is the will.
  I believe that ex gratia payments can be made, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has suggested. If the Minister is not willing to introduce such a scheme, will he recognise the justice of the claim and allow the House to decide on the matter? We have given him the means to do so.
  Mr. Maclean: What an extraordinary suggestion. We were castigated by the Opposition for operating an ex gratia scheme, and they demanded that we introduce a statutory scheme. We have now introduced a statutory scheme, and the Opposition are now suggesting that we go back to making ex gratia payments to a certain group of claimants.
  The hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that we can pick out a narrow category of claimants. If we get into the business of trying to backdate payments for a special group of claimants, why should we limit it to those claimants? What about all the other claimants, including the non-fatal cases and the 50 or 60 per cent. of claimants who would have been better off if the tariff scheme that was thrown out by the House of Lords had stayed in place? In all equity, do they not have a right as well to have payments backdated?

  459
  Why should we stop there? Why should we not backdate awards to those judged in 1993, 1992 or 1990? The hon. Gentleman, I think, has a guilty conscience.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Maclean: Let me finish this point.
  The hon. Gentleman tonight smells of a guilty conscience. When the Government lost the case in the House of Lords, he was crowing from the rafters about the tariff scheme being thrown out. He put out statements saying that a mean-spirited Home Secretary had been defeated in the Lords. But he has now discovered that one of the bits thrown out in that judgment was a new and generous scheme that we had introduced, which had not benefited victims before.
  Now the hon. Gentleman has a little bit of a guilty conscience. The Opposition crowed when the scheme was thrown out, but now they want us to put back in a measure. However, they want that measure to be targeted on only one group of people. They want us to ignore all the other claimants who—if we were to make such an extraordinary decision—should, in all equity, be included as well.
  Mr. Michael: That was a most extraordinary piece of wriggling by the Minister. The Government were guilty of trying to cut the cash for the victims of crime, and this scheme—which is better than the one they introduced illegally—involves a cut of £700 million in five years.
  I will answer the Minister's point in this way—it is easy for us to identify a specific limited number of individuals who are damaged by being caught in the gap which results from the Government's incompetence. We want to ensure that there is continuity between the scheme that was introduced and then withdrawn and the new scheme. That would cost—at the best possible estimate—about £2.5 million, but it would be just and right to introduce it. That is one reason for suggesting to the Minister that he accepts our offer of help in the legislation to correct the anomaly. Surely he should accept our offer.
  Mr. Maclean: The offer from the hon. Gentleman to help in the legislation is the best proof of his guilty conscience. He claims that these people are being caught in a trap, but they were not entitled to anything at all under the old scheme. We then came along with the best of intentions in our tariff scheme. The House of Lords asked us to withdraw that scheme, and that is where the problem came from.
  The hon. Gentleman is trying to weasel out by saying that such a scheme would cost only £1 million to £2 million. He ignores all the other victims, who, in all righteousness and equity, would also be entitled to demand that they should have their awards backdated.
  The other point that the hon. Gentleman is dodging is his boast of spending another £ 700 million on the scheme. Yes, he said that he wanted to spend only another £2 million, but that would be on top of the £700 million. Apparently he has had the permission of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to spend money on the new scheme.
  I shall now move on and deal with the other points raised in the debate.
  Mr. Rooker: I confess that I am not a lawyer, and I am in the Chamber only because I hope to listen to the Adjournment debate, but what strikes me about the
  460
  present debate is the constant use of the word "anomaly". Over the past few days, I have been in the Library reminding myself of the case of Pepper v. Hart, and I wonder whether, when the Minister was preparing his speech, he took advice on the implications of that case for the anomalies, such as who has missed out and who is left in now that we have a statutory scheme.
  Mr. Maclean: No, certainly not. Pepper v. Hart is one of those cases that has been grossly exaggerated, and it applies only where there is a clear misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the law. I have not bandied the word "anomaly" about. It is the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth who believes that he has found hundreds of anomalies. I am satisfied that what we are doing here is just and right, and that the scheme is as clear as we can possibly make it.
  To return to the other questions that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked, of course we want the scheme to be as clear as possible. I assure the House that it is in the interests of the Government and of the civil servants administering the scheme, as well as in the interests of victims, that there is as much clarity as possible in the scheme and in the guidance. We do not want obfuscation any more than the next man does; it simply fouls up the whole system—[Interruption.]
  If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth were in an executive position, he would realise the sense in what I say. If a scheme is not clear, one has to deal with constant phone calls and is always filling in forms and checking up. That is, among other things, costly.
  I give the House an absolute assurance that we shall monitor everything. We shall reflect on what the Law Commission says, and on what anyone else of any standing says—and even on what people of no standing whatever say. Of course we shall be given advice—from our appeals panel, among others, on changes that it may like to be made to the scheme. We shall consider what the panel says, and decide whether to make changes.
  I can certainly clarify the fact that it was always the intention that the term "child" in the guidance would cover adult children. How else does one describe the 50-year-old offspring of a 75-year-old? Such people are still the children of their parents, and of course they will qualify.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked me to listen to a few points about structured settlements. I am grateful for his courtesy in saying that the Government have listened to many comments, but I must make one little point: he obviously did not hear me say earlier in my speech, in connection with structured settlements, that the complementary change to the current scheme to permit the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 to extend to benefits for applicants under the current scheme whose claims have not yet been settled, was made on 8 November, the day that the Act received Royal Assent. We thought it sensible to do both at the same time.
  As for firemen, they are now merely being put in the same position as policemen with regard to the excessive risk category. If police officers are injured while arresting a criminal, it is sensible that they should receive compensation. However, if a policeman on duty trips over his shoelaces, he should not get criminal injuries compensation.
  If firemen were responding to an arson attack or other fire, they received compensation if they suffered injury as a direct result of the fire. However, they also received

  461
  criminal injuries compensation if they tripped over their hosepipes. That was rather a generous interpretation, so we are removing that provision and putting firemen in the same position as police officers. That is a sensible thing to do.
  Finally, I make the point again that the scheme that we have introduced under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 that is before the House tonight remains the most generous scheme of any country in the world. I make no apologies for mentioning that, especially to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who is a devoted and committed European. He will be interested to know, as the whole House will, that the scheme remains 236 times more generous than Austria's; 275 times more generous than Belgium's; 109 times more generous than that of the Netherlands; and 69 times more generous than Denmark's.

  Let us consider some bigger countries. The scheme is five times more generous than France's and 27 times more generous than mighty Germany's. All told, little old Great Britain accounts for 33.5 per cent. of all criminal injuries compensation paid out in the world.
  I have no qualms in urging my hon. Friends and the whole House to support the measures before us tonight, because victims of crime in this country will continue to get increasing amounts of money allocated to criminal injuries compensation schemes by the Government. The amount will go up year after year. Britain will continue, and rightly so, to treat victims of crime more generously than does any other country in the world. I commend the scheme to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  Delegated Legislation
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
    FAMILY LAW
    That the draft Child Support (Compensation for Recipients of Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
    FAMILY LAW
    That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft County Courts (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Question agreed to.

  LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills relating to their principle)).
  That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Homeless People (Voting Rights)
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg leave to present a petition that aims to secure voting rights for homeless people. Homeless people have considerable difficulty registering to vote. It is presented by people associated with CHAR, the campaign for the single homeless, and The Big Issue, which is sold on the street by homeless vendors.
  It is appropriate to present the petition now, because the final date for correcting draft electoral registers is 16 December and this is voters' rights week. It links with a petition that was handed in to Downing street earlier this week, which was signed by 7,500 people, 60 per cent. of whom had filled in coupons that had been placed in The Big Issue.
  The petition states:
  "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the People and supporters of CHAR and The Big Issue sheweth that Homeless People do not have a clear right to vote in national, local and European elections and are thereby excluded from the democratic process. The petitioners request that the Representation of the People Act (1983) is amended to guarantee the vote to all homeless people.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Prime Minister and the Government not to impede this petition.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  The petition is in the names of L. Flounders, Caroline Holden, and Paul Himsworth, the last of whom is the author of the report produced by CHAR.

Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
9.33 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate and for the fact that hon. Members in preceding debates have gone so swiftly through their business that we may be able to have a rather longer debate than we might have had otherwise. That enables the Minister's statement to be reported by The Birmingham Post tomorrow morning. It occurs to me that I should at this stage declare that the newspapers from which I shall be quoting are all published by Midland Independent Newspapers, of which I am non-executive chairman.
I welcome the parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) to his new job. In previous incarnations, we used to joust on transport. He used to sit on the Opposition Front Bench and I used to sit on the Government Front Bench. I hope that our experience will not set a precedent for our exchanges on the development of the health service.
The case that I shall advance on behalf of the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield is overwhelming. I have followed the development of the Good Hope hospital for more than 20 years and in that time it has faced some serious problems. In all fairness, the hospital's problems have not been confined to the past two or three years or even the past 14 or 15 years. One of the worst problems that the hospital ever faced involved the capital cuts of the 1970s which meant that the much-needed modernised new wards did not materialise. One of the great achievements of the Government in the 1980s, when I was Secretary of State for Health, was to make capital available so that the new wards could be built.
This evening I present to the House a problem which currently affects the Good Hope hospital and the public, and which requires urgent attention. The demand for beds at Good Hope hospital has always been high, but over the past month or so it has reached new peaks. Some patients who should have been admitted have been forced to wait nine, 10 and 11 hours on trolleys in the accident and emergency unit. The demand for hospital services is so high that there is currently about 97 per cent. bed occupancy at the Good Hope hospital.
On Saturday night I paid another visit to the Good Hope hospital without the press or official accompaniment, to see, on the ground, how the unit worked at a crucial time for the accident and emergency unit. Just before midnight there was precisely one bed available for patients in the hospital's regular wards. When that bed became occupied, treatment rooms and day rooms would have to be used to accommodate patients.
Over the past few weeks a number of well-publicised cases have proved that the facilities are inadequate. One of my constituents wrote to me to thank me for supporting the proposal to extend the accident and emergency unit at Good Hope hospital. The letter states:
"Earlier this year I had direct experience of the shortcomings of the unit when I was taken seriously ill one evening… I was one of 15 people that night who were unable to be found beds and left on trolleys around the department."
464
The Sutton Coldfield News contained an interview with the deputy president of the Royal College of Nursing, who visited Good Hope hospital. She said:
"We saw a 92-year-old who came to casualty at 9.20 am with a chest infection. When we came back in at 7.35 pm—just three minutes earlier they had found 'a bed' for her".
She said that the bed that had been found
"could be in a treatment room 'surrounded by syringes' or in a ward day room".
That is correct.
On Monday November 6 the Evening Mail detailed the case of a 58-year-old lady who had spent 11 hours on a trolley waiting for a bed in Sutton Coldfield's Good Hope hospital and a further 10 hours in a day room before being found a bed on a hospital ward. There are other such cases.
The Evening Mail of 16 November described a case in which emergency patients, including heart attack and asthma cases, lay on trolleys for up to 18 hours while doctors and nurses treated them in the corridor. That is the problem that we are dealing with at the Good Hope hospital, and especially in the accident and emergency unit.
That accident and emergency unit currently works, under any definition, at full stretch. I pay tribute to the staff, especially the nursing staff, for the enormous contribution that they make. Nothing that I say this evening is a criticism of their care or their standards. Indeed, interestingly, when I receive letters, although there is criticism of the facilities of the unit, almost everyone goes out of their way to remark on and pay tribute to the quality and dedication of the nursing staff and the standard of care that they receive.
If we can achieve what I shall suggest, I believe that the quality of care can be improved at Good Hope.
Let me explain why I have been campaigning for better facilities in the accident and emergency unit.
From the patient's point of view, the accident and emergency unit is the face of the hospital. It is where many patients come for the first time prior to admission. It is thus a crucial unit at Good Hope and it can determine how a patient and their relatives—for one should not forget them—look on the hospital generally.
Several features of the accident and emergency unit are, I say bluntly, unacceptable. I believe that it is unacceptable that people entering the hospital through the accident and emergency unit should be kept waiting for hour after hour on a trolley. I acknowledge that that is exceptional but, exception or not, it should not be part of a modern health service.
It is unacceptable for the accident and emergency unit to be so obviously out of date, with facilities that are so obviously rooted in the 1960s—so clearly incapable of providing the modern surroundings that the public are entitled to expect.
It is unacceptable that the design of the unit is such that it is impossible to make better provision for children. It is an issue that has not been fully ventilated in the debate that we have had about the accident and emergency unit.
Modern practice and common sense demand that children be treated separately from other cases that come into the unit. Let me explain why. Last Friday night—the night before I visited—there was intense pressure on the

465
unit. There was a series of road traffic accidents and there were some stabbings, which had taken place in fights. Any child who was there—two children were there—would see the injuries inflicted and the state of the people who came in. For children, that is obviously unacceptable.
Finally, it is unacceptable that staff, especially nurses, should be placed under the type of pressure that they are being placed under at the accident and emergency unit. Nurses are going home exhausted and sometimes in tears. The number of nurses on shift in the unit is obviously inadequate at times, and that problem needs to be urgently tackled.
I pay tribute to the devotion of the nurses because they work under difficult circumstances—I think that anyone who has visited the hospital will confirm that —but they work heroically under those circumstances.
Let us dispose of one other issue. The issue here is the demand for medical services at the hospital, not the efficiency of the hospital. Good Hope takes patients from north Birmingham, south Staffordshire and general practitioner referrals. Like the health service, the hospital is treating more patients than ever before in its history. That is a great success. It is treating more in-patients, more out-patients and more day cases. The accident and emergency unit is certainly taking in many more patients than at any stage in the past. In other words, the pressure is immense.
Here we come to a curious point about the financing of the cases coming into the unit. Good Hope is contracted to take in advance a particular total of accident and emergency patients for the year. That is set out in advance; a block contract is entered into. But the difficulty comes when the numbers coming to the unit go above that contract. One of the troubles at the moment is that the hospital is finding it difficult to get the resources needed to treat those extra patients. That is an issue of allocation of resources and needs to be tackled.
That is a precis of the problem. Good Hope is an excellent hospital. It has dedicated staff and there is a high and increasing demand for the services that it provides. The real irony with regard to the accident and emergency provision is that the position could be transformed by two relatively inexpensive steps which should now be taken.
First, the accident and emergency unit urgently needs to be modernised. There is no conceivable doubt about that, as anyone who has been to the hospital will confirm. We need to move from the old-fashioned world of curtained cubicles to something that better meets modern needs. As it happens, the reception area of the unit has already been transformed. I know that because I opened it myself two years ago. There is no doubt that, as a result, the reception area is much more welcoming now than it ever was previously. That has been a great step forward. The new capital works there have resulted in a transformation for those coming to the accident and emergency unit. But that is the outer facade. We now need to transform the area behind the reception where patients are taken, examined and treated. The unit itself needs to be modernised.
Secondly, at the same time, a new admissions unit should be built where patients can wait in a small purpose-built ward with permanent beds. That would make long waits on trolleys a thing of the past. Above all,
466
it would give a sense of reassurance to the people being treated—men and women who may be in severe shock and who are certainly extremely concerned about their position. That is why they are so upset about waiting on the trolleys in the first place.
Neither of those proposals are exactly revolutionary. Many hospitals in Britain already have exactly what I am describing. Even more to the point—my hon. Friend may consider this—neither of those steps are exorbitantly expensive. We are talking of spending in the region of not millions and millions of pounds but hundreds of thousands of pounds. That includes not only the capital cost—that is obviously vital and I hope that I have made the case for it—but the revenue cost of the nursing staff who would be necessary to staff the unit.
If the regional and local health authorities examine the position, they will find that the necessary resources can be made available. I do not believe that it will require any new allocation from the Government or from Whitehall to the west midlands.
That is what I urge essentially on the Minister this evening. He will doubtless say that he is not directly responsible for the running of Good Hope hospital, but he has regular talks and regular contact with the regional health authority which is responsible for the allocation of resources. I am making an overwhelming case for the allocation of resources and what is now required is immediate and urgent action along the lines that I have suggested. The Minister will not find many people in the health service or in Sutton Coldfield generally who disagree with what I have said.
Let me add in parenthesis that I have concentrated in this short debate on one particular problem in one particular hospital. If we had a wider debate and more time I would go further. I should like to see an outside examination of Birmingham's hospital services. Above all, I would like an outside examination and evaluation of the demand for hospital care in Britain's second city.
I propose an outside examination because that would provide an objective view of what is required. There is not much to be gained by claims, counterclaims and swapping slogans. I would prefer an urgent examination to be carried out by one man or woman—perhaps with one or two assessors—not so much on the lines of Tomlinson, but more on the lines of the inquiry that I set up with Sir Roy Griffiths into the management of the health service. He carried out that inquiry speedily and produced a succinct report. It was an objective analysis followed by the action that was required. It was to the benefit of everyone in the health service and it settled a particular issue.
I very much welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will debate health care in Birmingham in the new year. I would welcome it even more if he were prepared to carry out the evaluation that I suggest.
The figures that are now being given by the Department on the demand for accident and emergency facilities are understated—certainly in respect of Birmingham. If the figures are increasing by 3 per cent. per year, my hon. Friend will find that the annual increase of demand for accident and emergency facilities in Birmingham are substantially greater.
I hope that I have put a comprehensive case to the Minister. My purpose tonight in the Adjournment debate is, above all, to call attention to the accident and

467
emergency unit at Good Hope. The Government make available the resources for the health service and the region allocates them more locally. Between them, they can take the decisions that will solve the particular problem that I have set out and which has caused so much justifiable public concern over the past weeks.
Good Hope is an excellent hospital. It provides excellent care and has a devoted staff. I do not want it to be known as the hospital where patients wait on trolleys to be treated. That is totally unjust to the hospital; it is totally unjust to the staff and, above all, it is totally unfair to the patients.
9.54 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: With the approval of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and with the Minister's indulgence, I wish to say a few words.
Good Hope hospital is in Sutton Coldfield and Sutton Coldfield is in Birmingham. The Minister should be reminded of that because his constituency is several hundred miles away from the city. We are talking about a major Birmingham hospital that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, serves his constituency, a good part of north Birmingham, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), a goodly part of my constituency and the southern parts of Staffordshire.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the issue has not arisen recently. It can be traced back to the 1970s. I was at a major meeting at Good Hope hospital which was attended by about 400 to 500 patients. It took place in about 1977-78. There was a major problem involving the orthopaedic surgeon, whose name escapes me for the moment. He increased the momentum and pressure for change. At the time, there was an horrendous waiting list in north Birmingham. There has been considerable progress since then.
I understand that a debate on the health service is to take place in Birmingham during January. I say to all political parties that will be involved that I want grown-up politics from every one of them. I do not want anyone sailing into Birmingham from my party, the Conservative party or the Liberal party preaching political sloganism. That approach does not help the citizens of Birmingham. We want a dose of grown-up politics in discussing the health service crisis in Birmingham.
The issue is clouded and I support the right hon. Gentleman's argument that an objective look must be taken. The pressure on Good Hope hospital has been accentuated by the closure of the city-centre general hospital. Despite all the reasons for that, which we understand, we have lost several hundred beds in a small district general hospital. That is bound to put pressure on the other district general hospitals.
We know that in recent months there has been a management crisis and a bed crisis at City hospital, Dudley road. That hospital serves a good part of the north and west of Birmingham. That has put further pressure on Good Hope hospital.
At 1.30 pm on 17 January, I was taking a phone call from a constituent. It was about Frances Grew, an 88-year-old lady. She had gone into Good Hope hospital with a major blood circulation problem that was affecting
468
her feet. It so happened that Question Time related to health matters that day. I walked into the Chamber and was called to ask a supplementary question to the second question. I raised the issue of Mrs. Grew and my question appears in column 567. That was probably my quickest response to a constituency case during more than 20 years in this place.
I shall not go into the details of that case, but it related to the time that an 88-year-old lady had had to wait for a bed. She was dumped into a gynaecological ward, which upset her and her family. There had been a wait of five hours. As I have said, I took up the matter in the Chamber and in correspondence. I received letters from the region and the chairman of the trust that runs Good Hope hospital. On 23 March, I was told that the chairman of the trust was hoping for
"an improvement in the bed situation in the forthcoming financial year."
In other words, I was told in March that things would be a bit better in 1995-96. Since then, as the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington will confirm, the situation has become far more serious. People are now waiting up to 11 hours on a trolley.
Good Hope hospital is not a mobile army surgical unit. It is taking mobility to extremes when people are expected to wait on trolleys and to be moved around on them to create space for other people. They are moved out of their beds after 11 pm from one ward to another because of the pressure that is created by people entering the hospital.
That situation has not just arisen recently. In the past couple of days, I was contacted by a former constituent, Janet Taylor. She told me what had happened to her husband, Theo Taylor, on 28 October 1991 when, unfortunately, he suffered a stroke at the age of 48 years. He was taken to Good Hope hospital at 11.30 am. He was on a trolley until 7.15 pm. Then it was found that there were no bed sheets in the hospital. They had to go to two other hospitals to get bed linen.
That tells me that there is a problem of management. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield also said, I have not had a single telephone call, constituency surgery visit or letter that has ever criticised the nursing staff of Good Hope hospital. It is the management of the hospital that people perceive is wrong. The situation with the beds and the trolleys is not new.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wells.]
Mr. Rooker: I know that the top management have become a bit frustrated with the attacks on them in the press, and in that respect the Birmingham Evening Mail and the other newspapers have always taken a very pro view of our hospitals. If things are wrong, they have campaigned. It has never been a partisan issue for the press. The management has come in for some stick. Managers have became so short with one of my constituents that they wrote:
"If you thought about matters more deeply you would recognise"
that the staff are excellent. My constituent had not attacked the staff management; he attacked the management. He was told that the term "management" was old hat. It was old hat because it was not working at Good Hope. That happened in only February this year.

469
There have been other difficulties and major problems, with elderly people being moved around late at night from one ward to another. I understand that a block has now been put on that, and no one, except in the most exceptional circumstances—for example, a clinical need—can be moved from one ward to another after 11 pm. That is the new rule. There is also a new audit so that people do not miss their meals because trolleys are in the wrong place. That issue was raised with me earlier this year. The consequence of people being moved around—not just the wait for treatment and the worry of relatives with the person waiting for a doctor, waiting for a bed or perhaps waiting for a drip—is that people do not get fed. The consequences of all that, subject to the personal circumstances of the individual, can be horrendous, and unfortunately it gives the health service a bad name.
I share entirely the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman: solutions need not cost a bomb. I would have no problem in funding the public expenditure from the Government's balance sheet, because the expenditure is so small that we could get it to about the fifth decimal place when adding up a column of figures. I do not think that any of us is asking for massive amounts of public expenditure, but there is a need to look at what is happening in Birmingham.
The Minister is new to his position, and I congratulate him. Nevertheless, I invite him to look at hospital provision in Birmingham dispassionately. The problem is with not only the hospitals but the community facilities. There is a crisis in Birmingham; it keeps breaking out in different places at different times of the year, but it does not go away. There does not seem to have been any solution in the recent changes. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said in the debate and look at the position himself.
10.3 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: I make it clear that I do not disagree with a word that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—my neighbour — and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said. Good Hope is north Birmingham's hospital. The Sutton Coldfield Observer said everything about the state of the hospital when it reported on 13 October that a senior consultant at the accident and emergency unit at Good Hope was so fed up with what was going on that he quit. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned nine-hour—sometimes 18-hour—trolley waits.
Three weeks ago, the Birmingham Evening Mail, which I congratulate unreservedly on the vigour and strength that it has shown when backing the campaign to get decent hospital services in our city, reported that there was not a single bed available in the city. A crisis arose at Good Hope. Quite properly, it did a trawl of the other hospitals in the city, including Burton on Trent, and was told that there were no beds. The regional authority was quoted as saying that it did not know what the problem was. There were 25 beds available at Selly Oak hospital. The system clicks into action as soon as any hospital experiences trouble. It is a bureaucratic mess.
470
Perhaps I will be given some latitude at this point. It is difficult to discuss one hospital in isolation from the rest. I pin the blame for the acute bed crisis in our city firmly on the regional health authority: that is where the buck stops. The Minister will have found files inches thick on his desk—plans for a "better, healthy Birmingham". That regional health authority, however, has known for at least three or four years of the rising, steady demand for acute and emergency beds. It even set up a regional working party.
As the Minister will know, the same trend can be observed throughout the country. It was originally thought that GPs were using it to jump the queue, but one of the first things that the working party discovered was that that was not the case: more people were more ill and needing acute and emergency admissions, but there were no beds for them. That is the real problem: there are not enough acute beds.
Earlier this year, I tabled a question about the number of acute beds in Birmingham in 1979 and 1993-94. According to a written reply that I received on 18 April, in 1979 there were 4,391 acute beds in Birmingham; in 1993-94 there were 2,918. That represents a loss of 1,473. I understand that there is no magic in bed numbers; it is the use that is made of those beds that is important. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a 97 per cent. occupancy rate. However, the number of beds and the staff to run them properly become critical if the beds are not there when the crisis appears on the doorstep. That is the real problem in the city of Birmingham.
The regional health authority has shown itself to be totally incompetent. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and I have said that we shall never get the matter sorted out unless one or two independent experts from outside the city examine the position and produce an action plan. As the Minister will know, unless that is done the people responsible for the crisis will be the only ones asked to examine the reasons for that crisis, and they will not blame themselves; it will have to be someone else's fault. In fact, they were responsible for allocating the resources, and they have seen what has happened to bed numbers.
Along with my hon. Friends, I pay unreserved tribute to staff at all levels—and management—at Good Hope. I thank them for the work that they do under dreadful conditions. I mean that: I am not patronising those people. What I have said has been acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I must add, however, that it does not help to be summoned to a meeting in January this year and to be told that three or four departments are to be put out to private tender, and that the trust wants to build three new wards to take in private patients in order to increase its income. I do not want to get into an argument about private patients, but that is what those people were told.
Three months later, the trust announced that it could no longer afford those building operations. That is what drives people mad in the city of Birmingham. Plans are made and announced; then, all of a sudden, someone finds that there is no money. In the case of Solihull hospital, with which the Minister will be familiar, the building was constructed, equipped and staffed; a year later, someone said, "We are going to stop that." That drives people mad, but no one is ever responsible. Millions of pounds of scarce resources are squandered and frittered away as a result of the incompetence of the regional health authority along the Hagley road.

471
As for other pressures on beds, for reasons that I understand, under the system that the Government have introduced, all the pressure is on Good Hope and other hospitals to maximise the number of patients whom they treat from general practitioner fundholders, because the more they treat, the more money they receive. For non-fundholding general practitioners, there is a guarantee that no one will wait more than 13 weeks .for an appointment or nine months for surgery. In reality, I suspect that that is a minimum in each case because of a quarrel with North Birmingham health authority over the details of the contract.
Someone who works in the hospital has written to me, incidentally asking me not to use his or her name because it could lose that person his or her job. Does that not say a great deal about what is happening in the health service? Someone could lose his or her job for speaking up, on behalf of patients. That person says that the result of that pressure to treat more patients of fundholding GPs is that
"the wards are full, leaving no room for emergency admissions."
I want to Minister to understand this one. I know that he is not responsible for running Good Hope and that the main responsibility rests with those wretched incompetents on the regional health authority, but he has a duty to ensure that, within the money available, Birmingham gets a system that can guarantee that people needing acute and emergency treatment are able to receive such treatment.
Two or three weeks ago, in about mid-November, figures for emergency and acute treatment reached peak winter mid-February levels. The logic of that—because there is no sign of that demand decreasing—is that, when we really come to winter, a crisis will come about and lives will literally be put at risk. I do not want to be overdramatic about this, but it follows as sure as Might follows day.
I want to ask just for a little more money than the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr. Because of the change in the basis on which funding is allocated to Birmingham and the west midlands, it is estimated that there is a shortfall of about £25 million a year in the money that the city hospitals need, and of around £5 million a year for general practitioners and primary health care services. Those are not large amounts of money. No one is necessarily expecting that, when the Minister goes to Birmingham—as I hope that he soon will—he will have such cheques with him, but this problem will not be solved unless there is extra early and new investment. The position demands it and I hope that he will accept the need for that.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on what is an important issue and I, too, hope that our relationship in health matters will be rather different from that which it once was on transport matters: although our relationship was always good in those days, it was somewhat adversarial. I know that he takes a keen interest in developments at Good Hope hospital and how they affect standards of services provided for residents of Sutton Coldfield and surrounding regions.
472
The hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) both spoke with great passion. I was interested in what they had to say. They took the debate rather wider and I cannot reply fully tonight, but I took note of their points.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me this opportunity to congratulate all staff working at the Hawthorns surgery at Wylde green, Sutton Coldfield on being one of this year's charter mark award winners. They won their award for the high standards of patient service, of which I am sure he is aware, and that is an excellent achievement and one of which they can be justifiably proud. We should not lose sight of the fact that many other first-class developments are taking place both at Good Hope hospital and throughout health services in Birmingham.
My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, be the first to confirm that Good Hope hospital has a strong and positive commitment towards providing high-quality service for its patients, which was reflected in his and other comments. r understand that the hospital recently received provisional King's Fund association accreditation and that it is one of the few hospitals in the country to meet the rigorous requirements of the King's Fund organisational audit programme. Both those benefits stand the hospital in good stead.
Although Good Hope hospital is not large it dealt with almost 220,000 patients last year. Well over 50,000 of those attended through the accident and emergency department, just under 130,000 were out-patients, 33,000 were in-patients and about 8,300 were treated on a day-case basis. That represented a 16 per cent. overall increase on the previous year, and I understand that numbers of people treated by the hospital continue to rise.
No west midlands resident waits for more than nine months for either in-patient or day-case treatment. That is an excellent record. It is better than the standards laid down in the patients charter which require all patients to be admitted within 18 months, while those requiring coronary revascularisation have to be admitted within 12 months of joining the list. Of course urgent cases are dealt with much more quickly. For those who require out-patients appointments the current maximum waiting time at Good Hope hospital is 13 weeks across all specialities.
I share my right hon. Friend's disappointment and concern about the recent spate of reports about patients admitted to Good Hope hospital through its accident and emergency department having to wait for an excessively long time on trollies before being found a bed. Plainly, such waits are totally unacceptable. The patients charter makes it clear that those who are admitted to hospital through an accident and emergency department can expect to be given beds as soon as possible, and certainly within three to four hours. That requirement was clearly not met on a number of occasions that have been cited. We expect all hospitals to work towards meeting this standard and Good Hope is no exception.
I am told that the majority of recent trolley waits at Good Hope occurred during a sudden and unexpected surge in emergency demand throughout Birmingham. Hon. Members will be well aware of the nationwide trend of rising emergency admissions. I understand that between Monday 13 November and Wednesday 15 November Birmingham hospitals coped with significantly more emergency cases than expected. In

473
those three days 120 more emergency patients were seen by Birmingham hospitals than is normal in such a short period.
It was an exceptional situation and placed all of Birmingham's hospitals under extreme pressure. As a result it was not always possible for doctors to see some patients as quickly as they would have liked, nor, unfortunately, was it possible always to find appropriate beds for patients as quickly as usual.
That exceptional situation obviously required urgent action to relieve pressure and free beds to deal with the surge in emergency demand. Therefore, North and South Birmingham health authorities issued a yellow alert cancelling all non-urgent admissions for the rest of that week. That allowed the hospitals to concentrate their efforts and resources on treating emergency cases. I am told that the action that was taken was successful and that the situation in Birmingham was stabilised by the end of the week. However, I realise that for those who had operations cancelled at the last minute that action was perhaps less than welcome. I hope that they will understand the exceptional nature of the situation during that short period.
With the benefit of hindsight I have to agree that it would appear that Good Hope hospital experienced more difficulties than other Birmingham hospitals in coping with the problem. That is a matter of considerable concern and it is being addressed by West Midlands regional health authority through discussions between the trust and North Birmingham health authority. I understand that one of the reasons why Good Hope was unable to open more beds to meet demand, thereby cutting the use of trollies, was a shortage of nurses. That problem has already been identified by the trust which hopes that it will soon be resolved following a major recruitment drive to fill vacancies.
Contrary to the impression that has sometimes been given in local press reports, Good Hope is a forward-looking hospital. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health recently had the pleasure of opening the hospital's new —600,000, 15-bed day-case surgery unit. Advances in medical technology enable more and more patients to come into hospital, have operations and go home the same day. That is better for the patient, it means that more patients can be treated, and it reflects the enormous steps in medical technology in recent years. The new dedicated day case unit at Good Hope will allow more than 8,000 patients a year to be treated.
Also, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge, there have been other major capital developments at Good Hope which have either been completed recently or are planned. For example, £4.8 million has already been spent on refurbishing wards throughout the hospital, £2.7 million is being spent on a new dental and pharmacy suite, and £500,000 is planned for enhanced patient facilities.
474
None the less, the difficulties in the A and E department, which my right hon. Friend so cogently explained, are serious. In response to those problems, I have looked at the situation with considerable care since my appointment as a Minister. It is one of the things that has been at the top of my agenda during that period—a short period, but nevertheless one in which I gave the problems high priority.
I am therefore glad to be able to make two announcements. First, the west midlands regional office of the NHS executive has just approved a £1.4 million redevelopment at Good Hope to provide two additional emergency operating theatres. Those new theatres will reduce the strain on resources at times of peak demand in the accident and emergency department. That will mean better services for the patients who are accepted at Good Hope.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend mentioned at some length and with some fervour the problems arising from the out-of-date design of the A and E department and the extremely cramped and inappropriate facilities for children and, indeed, all people who attend the A and E department.
I am therefore very glad to be able to announce also a major face-lift to the Good Hope A and E department. That will mean structural changes within the department to create more space and thereby allow staff more flexibility to treat patients in a manner which my right hon. Friend would expect. Work will begin as soon as possible and be completed with a minimum delay.
That refurbishment has the support of the west midlands regional office, which will ensure that the trust finds the money necessary to meet the development costs.
Mr. Corbett: I am not trying to score points. Will the Minister make clear whether new money is involved in this welcome tidy-up of the A and E department?
Mr. Horam: I should make it clear that both the projects that I have announced are definitely being funded with new money.
In addition, my right hon. Friend brought up the suggestion of a new admissions unit. Although I cannot say anything specific about that tonight, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the idea has already been given much thought. I ask him to suggest to the people at Good Hope that they press forward with their business plan as rapidly as they can. The suggestion of such a new unit is clearly sensible and some work has already begun on it.
Those are two clear announcements. I hope that both developments will lead to a significant improvement in the performance of the A and E department at Good Hope hospital, to the benefit of the residents of Sutton Coldfield and the neighbouring areas of Birmingham.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ferranti/ISC
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has concerning the progress of inquiries, indictments and prosecutions in the United States of America in cases concerning the collapse of Ferranti/ISC. [4242]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office has been informed by the authorities in the USA that James Guerin was sentenced on 10 June 1992 to 15 years in prison. Since that date six other defendants have entered

  (i)Crown Prosecution Service Departmental staff in post by grade and ethnic origin

  White

  Ethnic minorities

  Grade

  Total staff

  Total returns

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage return

  Grade 1 to 6

  254

  213

  209

  98.1

  4

  1.9

  83.9

  Grade 7

  36

  26

  26

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  72.2

  PCP

  538

  351

  340

  96.9

  11

  3.1

  65.2

  SCP/SLA

  587

  345

  324

  93.9

  21

  6.1

  58.8

  CP

  410

  225

  207

  92.0

  18

  8.0

  54.9

  SEO/SI0

  116

  90

  90

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  77.6

  HEO/LIB

  310

  249

  244

  98.0

  5

  2.0

  80.3

  LTR

  116

  34

  30

  88.2

  4

  11.8

  29.3

  EO/SPS/TYPM/SM3

  1,189

  883

  848

  96.0

  35

  4.0

  74.3

  AO/PS/SGB1

  1,276

  925

  842

  91.0

  83

  9.0

  72.5

  AA/TYP/SGB2

  814

  577

  525

  91.0

  52

  9.0

  70.9

  Total

  5,646

  3,918

  3,685

  94.1

  233

  5.9

  69.4

  1. The figures for each grade includes staff on temporary promotion.

  2. The figures for grade 1 to 6 were not broken down by individual grades in 1991.

  (ii) Crown Prosecution Service Departmental staff in post by grade and ethnic origin

  30 September 1995

  White

  Ethnic minorities

  Grade

  Total staff

  Total returns

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage return

  Grade 1

  1

  1

  1

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  100.0

  Grade 3

  5

  5

  5

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  100.0

  Grade 4

  13

  13

  13

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  100.0

  Grade 5

  42

  41

  40

  97.6

  1

  2.4

  97.6

  Grade 6

  187

  175

  172

  98.3

  3

  1.7

  93.6

  Grade 7

  44

  39

  38

  97.4

  1

  2.6

  88.6

  PCP

  545

  459

  445

  96.9

  14

  3.1

  84.2

  SCP/SLA

  1,255

  1,040

  950

  91.3

  90

  8.7

  82.9

  CP

  233

  203

  180

  88.7

  23

  11.3

  87.1

  SEO/SLA

  105

  97

  97

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  92.4

  HEO/LIB

  297

  264

  258

  97.7

  6

  2.3

  88.9

  LTR

  102

  67

  62

  92.5

  5

  7.5

  65.7

  EO/SPS/TYPM/SM3

  1,327

  1,207

  1,130

  93.6

  77

  6.4

  91.0

  AO/PS/SGBI

  1,430

  1,260

  1,130

  89.7

  130

  10.3

  88.1

  AO/TYP/SGB2

  964

  767

  692

  90.2

  75

  9.8

  79.6

  Total

  6,550

  5,638

  5,213

  92.5

  425

  7.5

  86.1

  218
  guilty pleas but have yet to be sentenced. Five of those defendants have entered co-operation agreements with the US Government in relation to a trial currently scheduled to commence in January 1996. Other defendants remain outside the jurisdiction of the US courts.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General, what was the total staff establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales by each grade; and how many(a) in total and (b) from each grade were from an ethnic minority in (i) 1989 and (ii) 1995. [3651]

  The Solicitor-General
  Information of the ethnic origin of Crown Prosecution Service staff in each grade is not available for 1989. The earliest available comprehensive breakdown of staff in post by grade and ethnic origin is August 1991, following the Department's first ethnic monitoring survey of all staff. The tables therefore provide the total staff establishment and numbers of ethnic minority staff in each grades as at (i) 31 August 1991 and (ii) 30 September 1995.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3838]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible have no capital expenditure included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year. Use of the PFI is considered for projects where appropriate. It is not possible to say how much expenditure is likely to be financed under the PFI over the next five years.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3805]

  The Attorney-General
  To date, the Law Officers' departments have not used the private finance initiative for the funding of any schemes. However, use of the PFI is being considered for future projects where appropriate.

PRIME MINISTER

  Swiss Visit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister what was(a) the date and (b) the purpose of each visit paid by his predecessor to Switzerland between 1979 and 1990; and if he will list the engagements undertaken. [4361]

  The Prime Minister
  My predecessor has visited Switzerland on an official basis only once. She paid the first ever official visit to Switzerland by a British Prime Minister in office on 20–21 September 1990. The purpose of the visit was to discuss Swiss relations with the European Community, European Security Architecture and the Gulf crisis.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has received from the Government of the United States concerning the Scott inquiry; [4360]

  (2) what representations either written or oral he has received from the Government of Switzerland concerning the Scott inquiry; [4362]

  (3) what representations he has received from the Government of Belgium, either orally or in writing, concerning the Scott inquiry. [4243]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

HEALTH

  Influenza Vaccine
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many flu vaccinations have been given(a) so far this year and (b) in the same period last year. [3767]
  220
  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of influenza vaccinations given at any point of time is not available. The total number of doses of influenza vaccine distributed so far this influenza season is just over 6 million. Comparable data for the previous year are not available, but 6.1 million doses were eventually distributed by the end of the 1994–95 influenza season.

  Special Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the cost of care in medium secure units for patients discharged from special hospitals; and what are the arrangements for the financing of this continuing care; [356]

  (2) how many patients from special hospitals are expected to be discharged in (a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997; and how many of those are Birmingham residents; [3534]

  (3) what impact the discharge of patients from special hospitals will have on the availability of places at Reaside medium secure unit. [3535]

  Mr. Bowis
  District health authorities are responsible for meeting the costs of care for special hospital patients who require continuing health care including care in conditions of medium security. The costs of such care will depend on the facilities provided and the clinical needs of the patient.

  Information on the district of residence of special hospital patients and the anticipated number of discharges from the three special hospitals is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority which is responsible for managing the special hospitals, about these matters.

  The impact of special hospital discharges on medium secure units is a matter for consideration by the managers of each unit and the health authorities that purchase its services.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority region the number of(a) deaths from and (b) suspected cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease expected in each of the last five years. [3663]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of deaths and referrals in each regional health authority from 1 May 1990 to 30 November 1995 will be placed in the Library.

  Hepatitis C
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned (b) evaluated as to the effectiveness of alpha-interferon in the treatment of hepatitis C. [3760]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service standing group on health technology has identified the evaluation of the use of alpha-interferon in the treatment of hepatitis C as a top priority for research. The standing group's recommendations include work to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of alpha-interferon in the early treatment of hepatitis C, and its use in the prevention of relapse. In addition the Medical Research Council, which
  221
  receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, is currently considering a proposal for research on one particular aspect of the treatment of hepatitis C. My Department is also considering further research priorities relating to hepatitis C.

  Meningitis
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have resulted from meningitis in each health district of West Yorkshire in each year since 1990. [3696]

  Deaths from meningitis in each local authority district in West Yorkshire, 1990–1994

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  1990

  3

  1

  3

  4

  0

  1991

  4

  3

  3

  10

  3

  1992

  8

  1

  2

  5

  3

  1993

  7

  1

  3

  7

  2

  1994

  5

  3

  3

  2

  1

  Information is not available at district health authority level. (ICD codes for Meningitis are 013.0, 036.0, 047.0, 047.1, 047.8, 047.9, 049.0,049.1, 053.0, 0.72.1, 091,8, 094.2, 320, 322).

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what fee appliance contractors get for the provision of an appliance under the NHS; what fee a pharmacist gets for the provision of a similar appliance under NHS provision; what consideration has been given to altering the system; and if he will make a statement. [3612]

  Mr. Malone
  Appliance contractors are paid between 15.8 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the cost of the appliance depending on the volume dispensed plus a fee of between 2p and 78p depending of the type of appliance. Pharmacy contractors are paid a basic fee of either 85p or 94.6p plus and additional fee of between 69p and £1.97, according to the type of appliance and its cost. Pharmacy contractors can also be paid a professional allowance once they reach a monthly threshold of prescriptions dispensed and an additional fee for every expensive items. The Department keeps these systems of payment under review.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the tobacco industry on advertising by means of(a) press advertising, (b) outdoors (billboard) advertising, (c) shop front and point of sale advertising and (d) direct mail in 1994–95. [3981]

  Mr. Horam
  Information provided by the tobacco industry to assist in monitoring the voluntary agreement on tobacco products advertising and promotion is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the effects of the voluntary agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. [3978]

  Mr. Horam
  The Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Adverting and Sponsorship—COMATAS—was established to monitor both the voluntary agreement on tobacco products' advertising and promotion and the voluntary agreement on sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies in the United Kingdom. This committee reports annually on the progress and operation
  222
  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  The deaths data up to 1992 for England and Wales represent the number of deaths registered for each year while deaths from 1993 represent the number of deaths which occurred in each year. Also, new procedures for coding cause of death from 1993, and the absence of medical inquiries, mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be exactly comparable with earlier years. For most conditions however, including all meningitis, these effects are small. More details may be found in "OPCS Series DH2" for 1993, which was published in October 1995; copies of which are available in the Library.

  of the voluntary agreements. The eighth report of COMATAS was published on 18 July this year, and copies are available in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the documents agreeing the type and level of service to be provided by the healthcare group under the PFI to South Buckinghamshire NHS trust. [4082]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 4 December at columns 43–44.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3827]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (iii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3815]

  Mr. Horam
  The private finance initiative will further develop our excellent record of co-operation with the private sector and ensure new national health service capital schemes are provided promptly and run efficiently, for the benefit of all NHS patients. Before any PFI scheme with significant expenditure consequences for the NHS is approved, a business case is produced a demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the proposal and assess the public spending implications. Approval to PFI schemes is given only if the business case demonstrates that a PFI approach increases the cost-effectiveness of the scheme for the NHS and if any expenditure implications are affordable to NHS purchasers. The specific information requested is not available centrally.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the difference in cost to the NHS between the licensed morning-after pill and the pharmacologically equivalent oral contraceptive; and if he will make a statement. [4106]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the prices of oral contraceptives, including the morning-after pill, is in the latest edition of "British National Formulary", copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many executive directors of NHS trusts received annual salaries of more than £90,000 and £100,000 in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and if he will
  list each trust giving an annual salary of more than £100,000 to its executive directors in each of these years. [4458]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 28 November at column 604.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when an announcement will be made regarding access by state registered chiropodists to a restricted group of prescription only medicines, following the submission of proposals by the chiropodists' board of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine earlier this year. [3279]

  Mr. Bowis
  This proposal is currently being considered.

  Draft Medicines Advice Leaflet "MAL 8"
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date the revised medicines advice leaflet, "MAL 8" draft 3, dated 30 October, was forwarded to(a) the British Herbal Medicine Association and (b) the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy; and if he will make a statement on the treatment of these organisations in respect of his policy regarding consultation with the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy;[4114]

  (2) if he will list all those organisations which have so far been consulted about the medicines advice leaflet, "MAL 8", draft 3, dated 30 October; and if he will list the dates of meetings which officials of his Department have had with each of those organisations. [4115]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency—MCA—has discussed the contents of Leaflet MAL 8 with the Aromatherapy Trades Council—ATC—the British Herbal Manufacturers' Association—BHMA—the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association—CTPA—the Council for Responsible Nutrition—CRN—the Health Food Manufacturers' Association—HFMA—the Natural Medicines Association UK Ltd.—NMA—and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain—PAGB.
  224
  The MCA met the ATC, BHMA, CTPA, HFMA, NMA and PAGB on 6 September and again, with the exception of the CTPA, on 19 September. The agency met the CRN on 5 October, and the HFMA for a third time on 21 November.

  "MAL 8" provides non-statutory guidance to industry and trade associations on whether a product is medicinal. The draft of "MAL 8" dated 30 October was sent on 6 November to the BHMA and other manufacturers' trade associations. It was not sent to the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy—SPNT—or to other non-manufacturing bodies. The SPNT is amongst those organisations which would be consulted by the MCA on statutory issues.

  Road Traffic Act Charges
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the procedure for trusts being reimbursed for the treatment of patients injured in road traffic accidents.[4343]

  Mr. Horam
  The level of charges is periodically reviewed.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of claims made by all NHS hospitals in real terms under section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the relationship between the amount claimed and the amount that could be claimed if all claims were submitted by every trust.[4341]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of claims is not available centrally. All national health service hospitals are empowered to collect charges under section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  Intensive Care Units
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of high dependency units and intensive care units in each NHS region in each of the last five years. [4340]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Colostomy Bags
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to restrict the present list of colostomy bags available on the NHS or their availability on the NHS or their availability free of charge to patients. [4347]

  Mr. Malone
  None. People who have a permanent fistula are exempt from prescription charges, and this includes people who use colostomy bags.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost to the NHS in each of the last five years of treating patients with injuries resulting from road traffic accidents. [4342]
  225
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in each of the last five years for injuries caused by road traffic accidents. [4344]

  External cause of admission—motor vehicle traffic accidents (Code E810-E819)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Ordinary admissions

  36,214

  34,532

  26,229

  30,056

  29,783

  Day cases

  258

  288

  221

  237

  325

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Ultrasound

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospitals do not use ultrasound scans while carrying out amniocentesis on pregnant women. [4338]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the miscarriage risk of amniocentesis(a) with and (b) without ultrasound; and if he will make a statement. [4339]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has not made any estimates of the miscarriage risk with or without ultrasound of amniocentesis.

  This is a clinical matter and as such a matter for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Department of Health has asked the RCOG to consider this issue.

  Health Information Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the issue of HSG(92)91 to health authorities; and what information is to be collated by this guidance; [4232]

  (2) what information is retained by his Department in respect of HSG(92)91; [4233]

  (3) if the appropriate bodies within the national health service have supplied the information they are obliged to under HSG(92)91; and what action his Department has taken in respect of those authorities not complying with this guidance. [4234]

  Mr. Horam
  HSG(92)21, issued in March 1992, required regional health authorities to establish a health information service for the public in their region from 1 April 1992, accessible by an 0345 telephone line. In January 1993, these regional services became the national health information service, accessible by the public through an 0800 telephone line. All regional health authorities established a service and continue to run them as required by the guidelines.

  The health information service is required to provide information about local services, patients charter standards, waiting times, common diseases and conditions, how to complain about NHS services and maintaining and improving health.

  The Department holds information about the cost of and numbers of calls to the health information service.
  226
  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. This information covers only admissions to hospital.

  Revised guidelines, HSG(95)44, issued on 18 September 1995, supersede HSG(92)21 and should be implemented by health authorities from April 1996.

  Unregistrable Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to representatives of placing local authorities about communicating concerns about poor practice in unregistrable children's homes to area local authorities. [4283]

  Mr. Bowis
  LAC(93)16, copies of which are available in the Library, advises that authorities placing children in homes in a different area must inform the geographical authority about the placement and that authority should inform themselves about the welfare of those children.

  The guidance "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989" issues to local authorities advises that where abuse by a member of staff in a children's home is suspected the local social services department should be informed immediately.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4235]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table:

  Total number of Visits

  Total number of visits abroad

  Visits abroad as a percentage of total number of visits

  Secretary of State for Health

  14

  Nil

  —

  Minister of State for Health: Mr Malone

  24

  1

  4.2

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State:

  Mr. Sackville/Mr. Horam

  27

  1

  3.7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State:

  Mr. Bowls OBE

  32

  1

  3.1

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State:

  Baroness Cumberlege CBE

  35

  Nil

  —

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total amount paid in legal aid; what was the total amount of(a) individual recipients and (b) other recipients in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [4039]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Unfortunately, in the time available, it has not proved possible to collate the required data. I shall write to the hon. and learned Member as soon as possible.

  Bailiffs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce powers to prevent bailiffs from seizing assets in excess of 1000 per cent. of the original debt. [3467]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A debtor aggrieved by irregularity in the execution of a warrant, which can include excessive seizure, has a right to sue for damages. Further regulation of bailiffs is being considered in the context of the review of the organisation and management of civil enforcement agents.

  Financial Penalties (Enforcement)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the working group on the enforcement of financial penalties was set up by his Department; what were its terms of reference; and who constitutes the membership. [3431]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The first meeting of the working group on the enforcement of financial penalties was on 19 May 1995. Its terms of reference are urgently to identify ways of improving the enforcement of financial penalties, including fines, compensation orders and confiscation orders, so as to reduce the level of financial penalties in arrears and the level of write-offs, and in particular: to establish the true level and nature of financial penalties in arrears; to promote the identification and wider application of "good practice" in the enforcement of financial penalties, taking note as appropriate of the work of the inspectorate in this area; to recommend procedural, administrative or legislative changes which would improve the enforcement of financial penalties; and to conduct or sponsor further research, if necessary, into the enforcement of financial penalties.

  The membership is as specified in the written answer of 19 July 1995, Official Report, column 1300, except for the addition since that date of a representative of the metropolitan stipendiary magistrates.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions a warrant of distress under section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 was applied for in the case of those defendants who were jailed for fine default during 1994.[3439]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  228
  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions an application was made to the High Court or county court for enforcement under section 87 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, in cases of those defendants who were jailed for fine default during 1994. [3440]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3816]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, no such schemes have yet been approved.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current year and the next five financial years. [3839]

  Mr. Evans
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, it is forecast that the capital expenditure to be sought from the private sector within the private finance initiative will be nil in 1995–96, £10 million in 1996–97, £29 million in 1997–98, £35 million in 1998–99, £27 million in 1999–2000 and £28 million in 2000–01. There are also 49 magistrates' court building schemes planned for the next five financial years, for which local authorities will need to seek private finance.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 29 and 30 November; and if he will make a statement. [4847]

  Mr. Hogg
  This meeting of the Council took no formal decisions.

  The Council again considered the Commission's proposal to alter the calculation of the additional set-aside that farmers are required to make, in the following year, when the regional base area for arable crops has been exceeded. Other member states were prepared to accept a package of amendments to the proposal, one of which was that additional set-aside of less than 1 per cent., should not apply in 1996. I made clear that I did not support this element, because it would illogically discriminate against farmers in areas where the additional requirement fell just the other side of the line.

  There was a further discussion of the Commission's proposal for changes to the support system for fruit and vegetables. The Council reached no conclusions and will return to the subject at its next meeting.
  229
  In response to questions the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, confirmed that he intended to submit his report on the treatment of veal calves in time for the Council's next meeting.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the certificate of competence scheme for the purchase of organophosphorus sheep dips. [4848]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following advice from the Veterinary Products Committee, new restrictions on the sale of organophosphorus sheep dips were introduced in 1994. A requirement that such dips may be purchased only by persons holding, or employing someone who holds, a certificate of competence in their use came fully into effect on 1 April this year. I have now set in hand a review to assess the effectiveness of the scheme. The views of a wide range of interests are currently being sought on this land and other aspects of the use of organophosphorus sheep dips. A copy of the consultation letter and circulation list is being placed in the Library of the House.

  The Veterinary Products Committee will be asked to review the results of the consultation and I expect to receive the further advice of the VPC early next year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the annual income from(a) fees, (b) charges and (c) fines; what was the total number of staff employed (i) part-time and (ii) full-time: and what contribution his Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years in respect of (1) the Agricultural Wages Board, (2) the Wine Standards Board, (3) the plant health and seeds inspectorate, (4) the sea fisheries inspectorate, (5) the Animal Health Act inspectors and veterinary inspectorate, (6) the egg marketing inspectorate, (7) the fatstock inspectorate, (8) the horticultural marketing inspectorate, (9) the terrestrial radiological inspectorate, (10) the fisheries radiological inspectorate, (11) the fisheries disease inspectorate and (12) the milk and dairies inspection under ADAS. [2752]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: The information is as follows:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1. Agricultural Wages Board

  Fees and charges

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £140,000

  £175,000

  £203,647

  Staff numbers

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  The above running cost figures include the cost of secretarial support provided by MAFF of

  £88,401

  £94,103

  £104,477

  The board does not employ staff.
  230

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  2. The Wine Standards Board

  Fees and charges

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £159,000

  £284,000

  £296,000

  Staff numbers

  13

  13

  13

  This body is an NDPB, outside the central running cost regime.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  3. The Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £717,793

  £524,854

  £530,638

  Fines

  Nil

  £1,500

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £2,820,980

  £3,166,293

  £3,367,492

  Staff numbers

  115

  110

  105

  Inspection charges aim to cover the relevant costs of the plant health and seeds inspectorate and other services which contribute to the chargeable services.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  4.The Sea Fisheries Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £2,215,000

  £2,788,000

  £2,864,000

  Staff numbers

  95

  117

  117

  Records of fines imposed by the inspectorate are not readily accessible and in the time available it has not been possible to obtain the necessary details.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  5. The Animal Health Act Inspectors and Veterinary Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £1,674,897

  £1,838,261

  £1,492,415

  Fines

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £1,674,897

  £1,838,261

  £1,492,415

  Staff numbers

  88

  76

  48

  The inspectorate has no powers to impose fines. The courts do this but in the time available it has not been possible to access the records. The question relates to animal health inspectors and the veterinary inspectorate. No structure of this nature exists in MAFF. Therefore, it is assumed the question refers to those parts of the "Animal Health and Veterinary Group" which carry out functions of a similar nature. Fees and charges are set to recover the full cost of the service.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  6. The Egg Marketing Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fines

  £4,418

  £11,680

  £7,354

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £1,450,000

  £1,470,000

  £1,100,000

  Staff numbers

  35

  35

  37

  Fines are administered by courts as the Inspectorate has no powers to impose fines. In the time available it has not been possible to access the relevant records.
  231

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  7. The Fatstock Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £494,547

  £458,097

  £390,987

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £428,314

  £481,276

  £480,069

  Staff numbers

  12

  12

  10

  No fines are imposed. The Intervention Board Executive Agency commissions the work. Fees and charges aim to achieve full cost recovery.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  8. The Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £231,678

  £252,000

  £258,000

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £231,678

  £252,000

  £258,000

  Staff numbers

  3

  4

  6

  The fees above are payments from the IBEA for enforcement work on CAP in England and Wales and work for the London commodity market exchange for potatoes. The fees above are set to recover the full cost of the Inspectorate.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  9. The Terrestrial Radiological Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £1,379,110

  £1,526,663

  £1,535,375

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £1,379,110

  £1,526,663

  £1,525,375

  Staff numbers

  12

  11

  13

  Fees and charges are set to recover the full cost MAFF incurs in providing this service. Only Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, an agency of the DOE, can impose fines.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  10. The Fisheries Radiological Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £1,855,130

  £2,274,724

  £2,086,609

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £1,855,130

  £2,274,724

  £2,086,609

  Staff numbers

  32

  35

  35

  Fees and charges are set to recover the full cost MAFF incurs in providing this service. Fines are imposed by HMIP as above.

  1992–93

  193–94

  1994–95

  11.The Fish Disease Inspectorate

  Fees and charges

  £2,111

  £821

  £606

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £534,638

  £1,239,853

  £1,326,678

  Staff numbers

  10

  21

  23

  Fees relate to ad-hoc additional services for export certification as requested by the exporter. No charge is made for domestic or European Union certification. The inspectorate has no powers to impose fines. Staff figures in the respective years include 5, 12 and 13 administrators engaged in other parts of the fish health programme, including diagnostic work on import licensing.
  232

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  12. The Milk and Dairies Inspection under ADAS

  Fees and charges

  £1,348,330

  £1,267,496

  £1,341,440

  Fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  MAFF contribution to running costs

  £1,804,560

  £1,384,757

  £1,392,426

  Staff numbers

  29

  28

  27

  1. Staff numbers shown above include full-time and part-time employees (full-time equivalents).

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  3. Except where full cost recovery is indicated, "MAFF's contribution to running costs" shown above represents cash costs of pay and work related personal expenses.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that full consultation takes place on the draft animal transportation guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [3178]

  Mrs. Browning
  The consultation package on the new EU rules on animal welfare during transport was sent to some 600 interested organisations and individuals on 23 October. It was drawn up on the basis of preliminary discussions with the major interest groups; we are having further meetings and discussions as the consultation process progresses. Further public consultation will take place on the legal texts which will be drawn up after the present exercise concludes on 15 December.

  Frogs' Legs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries of origin of frogs' legs imported by the United Kingdom in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and if he will make a statement on the import by the United Kingdom of frogs' legs from Bangladesh in (a) 1993 and (b) 1994. [3204]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 225–26. There were no imports of frogs' legs direct from Bangladesh into the UK during 1993 and 1994 or into the EU countries from which the UK imported frogs' legs in 1993 and 1994.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Spanish-owned but British-registered fishing vessels were prevented from fishing in United Kingdom waters under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 now overturned by the European Court; what action was taken against those vessels; how many were subsequently(a) tied up in Britain, (b) tied up in Spain, (c) transferred to Spain to continue fishing and (d) sold to other owners; what investigation has he made into each vessel's claim for compensation; and what records each will be required to produce to substantiate that claim. [3689]

  Mr. Baldry
  Some 150 vessels were removed from the UK fishing vessel register in 1989. About 95 of these vessels have returned to the UK register or have had their
  233
  licences placed on other UK-registered vessels. Detailed information is not held on the whereabouts of those vessels which have not returned to the UK register.

  The issue of whether compensation is payable to vessels removed from the register is awaiting a ruling by the European Court of Justice. The Advocate General, in his opinion of 28 November, was of the view that national Governments are liable to pay damages to individuals where the legislature has passed a national law which is incompatible with Community law, provided that the obligation imposed on the state from which the individual's right is derived is clear. The Advocate General's opinion is not binding, however, and we must await the ruling of the court itself. If the court took a similar view to the Advocate General it would be for the UK courts to determine its application in individual cases.

  Nitrate Levels (Lettuces)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the research by Aberdeen university on nitrate levels in lettuces. [3490]

  Mrs. Browning
  This study at Aberdeen university on the metabolism of dietary nitrate in man is funded by the Ministry and started earlier this year. Preliminary results indicate that nitrate in the diet, which derives mainly from leafy green vegetables, including lettuce, may play a significant role in protecting the body from infection by pathogenic organisms. A full assessment of this work will be made on its completion.

  Monkfish
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to amend the United Kingdom quota for monkfish to take account of the practicalities of fishing in the English channel. [4013]

  Mr. Baldry
  For 1996 I propose to support an increase in the total allowable catch and hence the UK quota for monkfish in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area VII. This includes the English channel.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3817]

  Mr. Boswell
  Several projects are currently being assessed for their potential but no schemes have so far been agreed under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3822]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

ENVIRONMENT

  Health Care Waste
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will instruct his officials to hold discussions with the Sanitary Medical Disposal Services Association in respect of the definition of hazardous health care wastes; [3549]

  (2) if he will instruct his officials to have discussions with officials at the Department of Transport to ensure that the definition of infectious waste applied to the transport of infectious waste is identical to the definition of infectious waste applying to the disposal of infectious waste; [3550]

  (3) if he will ensure that the waste management paper No. 23 to be implemented in 1996 will specify that hazardous health care waste should be interpreted to include only notifiable disease waste. [3548]

  Mr. Clappison
  I know that the Sanitary Medical Disposal Services Association is concerned lest developments in the regulation fo health care wastes might damage its members' business. The association can at any time initiate new discussions with my Department. The association may also wish to comment on the Health and Safety Commission's draft revised version of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 1994. Consultation among Departments would depend to some extent on the nature of the association's concerns. But since I wish to minimise inconvenience to business and to ensure proper arrangements for environmental protection and health and safety, my Department will in any case consult further with the Department of Transport. If alterations in the UK statute were the right course, that would be done in the normal way: waste management papers cannot alter statute or the rules of statutory interpretation.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff were employed in the employment medical advisory service of the Health and Safety Executive in(a)(b) 1985 and (c) each of the last five years. [3610]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows the number of staff employed by the employment medical advisory service of the Health and Safety Executive in(a)(b) 1985 and (c) each of the last five years.
  Year(1 April)

  1980: 145.5

  1985: 106.5

  1991: 93.5

  1992: 100

  1993: 108

  1994: 98.5

  1995: 78.34

  Village Halls
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the number of village halls in England(a) in 1979 and (b) at present.[3947]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand from Action with Communities in Rural England that the number of village halls in England was(a) 8,350 in 1979 and (b) 8,600 at present.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase the resources available to fund capital projects for charitable village halls. [3946]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The White Paper on Rural England published by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in October recognised the important role village halls play in small communities. My Department has recently agreed that the Rural Development Commission should increase to £1.15 million the amount it will make available to communities for the construction, renovation or improvement of village halls and community centres during 1995–96.

  In many cases, funding for capital spending on village halls is administered by the local parish or town council. To fund capital spending a council may use any revenue funds or capital receipts that are available to it or may choose to borrow. The Local Government Act 1972 requires parish and town councils to apply for a specific borrowing approval from the Secretary of State. Borrowing approvals are subject to an overall national limit for each financial year. The national limit for England in 1995–96 was increased to £6.195 million. The national limit for 1996–97 will be announced next February.

  Fur Imports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to implement European regulation 3254/91; [3916]

  (2) if he will list the countries which under the European Regulation 3254/91 are banned from importing certain furs to the European Union. [3917]

  Mr. Clappison
  Under EC regulation 3254/91, use of the leghold trap has been banned in the European Union since 1 January 1995. The ban on the import of certain furs was postponed until 1 January 1996. The college of Commissioners intends to submit proposals to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament seeking postponement of the import ban. We will consider these when we see the details.

  Local Authority Attendance Allowances
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage change in attendance allowances between 1995–96 and 1996–97 for each local authority in England; and for each local authority, which political party is in control. [3796]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department neither collects nor holds information in respect of attendance allowances set by local authorities.

  Government Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the budget for each regional Government office in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is to be the budget for 1996–97. [4318]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Detailed information about the budgets for the Government office in each region in 1994–95 and 1995–96 is provided in "GO MINIS I", copies of which were placed in the Library in July. The budgets for 1996–97 have not yet been agreed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of refugees who will be in need of accommodation following the implementation of the social security orders in January; and what provision he has made to provide emergency accommodation for such refugees. [4074]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: Following implementation of the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Regulations 1995, asylum seekers who apply for asylum after entering the United Kingdom, and those whose applications for asylum have been refused, will have no entitlement to social security benefits and will be expected to make their own arrangements for accommodation while they are in this country. Asylum seekers who meet the statutory homelessness criteria will continue to be eligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation.

  Under provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently before Parliament, the Secretary of State would have the power to specify by order classes of persons requiring leave to enter or 'remain in the United Kingdom who would not be eligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation, and classes of persons who would not be entitled to be allocated council accommodation. We intend to use these powers to align the entitlement to public housing assistance of persons who require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including asylum seekers, with their entitlement to social security benefits.

  Persons who are granted refugee status, or exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, will continue to be entitled to public housing assistance.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral statement on last year's local government finance 30 November,Official Report, columns 1333–39, if the increased resources for education announced by her Majesty's Government will be included in the standard spending assessments for financial year 1996–97; and how many councils who are also local education authorities will have increases in their revenue support grant that will permit them to expand their annual resources on education without reducing the levels of other services provided in 1995–96 or increasing the amount of council time levied in that year. [4178]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: Education standard spending will increase by 4.5 per cent. in 1996–97. The provisional capping criteria will allow all authorities to increase their spending in line with

  237
  the increase in their education SSAs. Aggregate external finance, which includes revenue support grant and is not hypothecated, will increase by 2.8 per cent., as against an increase in total standard spending, excluding the provision for local government reorganisation, of 3.1 per cent.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the likely reduction in private funding in housing through the private finance initiative as a result of the reduction in funding to housing associations announced in the recent Budget. [4334]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: An estimate of the private finance which is expected to be attracted by the Housing Corporation's approved development programme will be available in late January, when the programme has been finalised.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3825]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The projected figures for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 are set out in the table. Estimates for subsequent years are not yet available.

  Year

  Forecast private finance (£ billion)

  1995–96

  4.5

  1996–97

  6.0

  1997–98

  6.0

  1998–99

  5.0

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been wholly funded within the public sector. [3820]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies attracted around £4 billion in private investment in support of its programmes in 1994–95 and expects to increase that figure in 1995–96. This will assist the delivery of a very large number of projects, most notably ones relating to housing, inner cities and regeneration. It is not practicable for the Department to collect detailed information on each project being advanced under private financing arrangements.

  Yorkshire Water
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received over the last year from individuals and organisations expressing concerns about the ability of Yorkshire Water to supply water, and its investment programmes; and what action he or his officials have taken following such representations. [4214]
  238
  Mr. Clappison
  A number of representations have been received over the past year from interested parties about various aspects of Yorkshire Water's activities. The Government have announced a review of the lessons to be learnt from this summer's drought and of the action to be taken to enable a sensible balance to be struck between customers' expectations and costs of providing the service and protecting the environment.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what dates in the last year he, other Ministerial colleagues or officials have met(a) representatives of Yorkshire Water and (b) the director of Ofwat or Ofwat officials to discuss matters relating to Yorkshire Water; [4215]

  (2) how many representations and on what dates he has received from Ofwat over the past three years, about the ability of Yorkshire Water to supply water to all its customers during periods of drought; and on what dates he or his officials made contact with Yorkshire Water about such representations; and if he will make a statement. [4216]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ministers have met Yorkshire Water officials on several occasions over the year. There is frequent contact between officials and the Director General of Water Services and his officials. No representations have been made by Ofwat to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about Yorkshire Water.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will establish an independent public inquiry into all aspects of Yorkshire Water; [4217]

  (2) what plans he has for encouraging Yorkshire Water to invest more in infrastructure to enable it to move water within the region and to repair leaks and maintain pipes. [4218]

  Mr. Clappison
  A public inquiry would not be appropriate. The performance of Yorkshire Water is a matter for the Director General of Water Services, who has already written to the company about various aspects of its operations.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and I December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4226]

  Mr. Curry
  I undertook 17 ministerial visits between 6 July and 1 December this year, of which one involved travelling outside the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State undertook 29 visits, of which seven involved travelling outside the UK. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, Earl Ferrers, undertook 10 visits, of which two involved travelling outside the UK. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, my hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones) undertook 20 visits, of which three involved travelling outside the UK. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sir Paul Beresford) undertook 16 visits, none of which involved travelling
  239
  outside the UK. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) undertook 20 visits, of which three involved travelling outside the UK.

DEFENCE

  Rucker Report
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to publish the Rucker report on the guarding of MoD establishments; [3333]

  (2) what consultations have so far taken place on the Rucker report. [3334]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of our proposals for the future of Defence police and guarding structures are being published today. Copies of the consultative document are being sent to staff associations and trade unions. Copies will also be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the charter of transport facilities for British troops being deployed to Bosnia. [4351]

  Mr. Soames
  No transport facilities have been chartered to move British troops to Bosnia as this task is being undertaken by the RAF's air transport force. Two US Navy ships have been chartered to move the equipment for United Kingdom forces. Other shipping will be chartered as necessary.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the members of the armed forces serving in Bosnia who are in situations where alleged war criminals are present. [4352]

  Mr. Soames
  UNPROFOR troops are not mandated to arrest individuals indicted for war crimes by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. NATO is actively examining how the peace implementation force can help the work of the tribunal, although its principal tasks will be monitoring the ceasefire and the separation forces.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the rules of engagement for British troops participating in the Bosnian peace implementation force. [4350]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment in detail on rules of engagement. However, I can confirm that United Kingdom troops will operate under NATO rules of engagement which will be consistent with the requirement for self-defence and will ensure that they can carry out their mission effectively.

  Defence Cost Study Reports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of each defence cost study report. [4357]
  240
  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in the Ministry of Defence memoranda "Front Line First" of 14 July 1994 and "Front Line First—A Year On" of 30 June 1995. Copies of both are available in the Library of the House.

  Cannabis
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the recruitment of personnel who have a criminal record for using cannabis; and if he will make a statement. [4353]

  Mr. Soames
  All applicants to the armed forces who have a conviction for the sale, possession or abuse of controlled drugs are deemed to be unsuitable for military service.

  Experimentation with class B "soft" drugs, such as cannabis, is not a bar to entry to the armed forces in itself, but the attitude to drugs is of prime importance. A young person who has used cannabis on a one-off basis will not be automatically rejected.

  Personnel Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees there are in(a) the armed forces, (b) Ministry of Defence civilian staff, (c) Ministry of Defence agencies and (d) Ministry of Defence contractorised agencies. [4355]

  Mr. Soames
  Regular service and civilian personnel strengths are given in table 2.1 of "UK Defence Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Personnel numbers in Defence agencies are given in table 2.20 of the same publication.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4241]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministers carry out many visits in the course of their official duties. During the period in question the numbers of official visits overseas by Defence Ministers were as follows:

  Secretary of State: 7

  Minister of State (Armed Forces): 4

  Minister of State (Defence Procurement): 2

  Under-Secretary of State: I.

  Some of these visits involved more than one country.

  Army Recruitment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions he has taken to improve his Department's recruitment for the British Army. [4354]

  Mr. Soames
  We are conducting a vigorous campaign to increase recruiting to the British Army and plan to spend an additional £5 million on recruit advertising in this financial year. We are also reviewing the planned number and location of Army careers offices to take account of the need for increased recruiting. These
  241
  recruiting initiatives are matched by additional retention incentives to encourage soldiers to stay longer in the Army. We are also considering other ideas for recruitment to the armed forces.

  Armed Service Pensions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently in receipt of armed service pensions. [4356]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 October 1995, pensions were being paid to 319,251 people under the armed forces pension scheme.

  Ministry Police
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the annual report on the MoD police, for what reasons a shortfall of 195 posts in the Ministry of Defence police has occurred. [3335]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A manning deficit was maintained by the chief constable to reflect known base closures and anticipated manpower reductions resulting from base security reviews at the time the 1994–95 annual report was published.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the
  242
  purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3960]

  Mr. Soames
  Budget-holders throughout the Ministry of Defence have delegated authority to engage external advisors, on a paid consultancy basis or otherwise, to conduct independent reviews of aspects of the Department's work. Information on such studies is not collected centrally, and the details requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information relating to individuals employed by the Department are contained in the civil service staff post summary tables, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Individuals employed by the Department are engaged in assisting the Department to attain its aims and objectives as set out in the departmental report.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army and Army Reserve are to be called out for service with NATO implementation force in former Yugoslavia. [4836]

  Mr. Soames
  Following further planning work, a requirement for about 460 TA and Army reservists has been identified in the UK's contribution to the NATO implementation force. In order to allow a margin for those who prove to be medially unfit or otherwise unsuitable for service, I have authorised the call-out of up to 550 members of the Territorial Army and Army Reserve. All are volunteers for the operation. They will report to the infantry training centre, Catterick for medical screening, and selection and acceptance into service. Those who deploy will undertake refresher training before joining their units.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Station Detainees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the levels of morbidity and mortality of detainees in police stations, for each of the last five years for which information is held. [4036]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information held centrally relates to deaths of persons occurring within police stations. The information, which excludes the Metropolitan police district, is given in the table. Statistics for deaths occurring within the Metropolitan police district are produced by the force on a financial year basis and published in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Number of deaths occurring within police stations England and Wales (excluding MPD)

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1990

  19

  1991

  21

  1992

  15

  1993

  15

  1994

  17

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what clinical and therapeutic guidelines are in place for the care of detainees in police stations with opiate withdrawal; and if he will make a statement. [4035]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department of Health has issued guidelines for the clinical management of substance misusers in police custody, which have been distributed to all police forces.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are in place outlining standards of health care to which detainees in police stations are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [4034]

  Mr. Maclean
  The code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers—code C—issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 sets out, among other things. the arrangements for the medical care of detained persons in a police station. The British Medical Association in conjunction with the Association of Police Surgeons has produced guidance for police surgeons on the health care of police detainees.

  Police Surgeons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police surgeons were approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983, for each of the last ten years for which figures are available. [4037]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police surgeons are employed by individual police forces. No information is held centrally on the numbers approved under the Mental Health Act.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3814]

  Mr. Howard
  Two projects have been contractually agreed under the private finance initiative.

  The estimated costs to public funds are as follows:

  £000

  Schemes contractually agreed

  (a)Capital

  (b) Revenue (per annum)

  (i) Under the PFI

  Police National Network

  1—

  2not available

  Gatwick Immigration Detention Centre

  1–

  3987

  (ii) If the projects had been wholly public sector funded:

  Police National Network

  12,000

  13,000

  Gatwick Immigration Detention Centre

  15,000

  30

  1The initial capital cost to the contractor of the PNN is believed to be of the order of £10m (with an estimated full cost over 5 years of some £50 million), and of the Gatwick Centre £12m.

  2 Police forces purchase usage of the network from public funds, and the value will vary with demand.

  3The current contract relates only to the provision of the Centre. A separate operating contract is to follow.

  1. Under both scenarios, preparatory costs will/would have been incurred within my Department.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3828]

  Mr. Howard
  Private sector capital expenditure in this financial year is expected to be £20 million. For future years. I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted asylum on appeal in each of the last 20 years. [4038]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information for 1994 on the outcome of appeals of people who had been refused asylum—including those initially granted exceptional leave to remain—is given in table 8.3 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Not all people whose appeals are allowed or referred back to the Secretary of State are granted asylum; some appeals allowed by adjudicators are reversed by the tribunal and others which were dismissed are subsequently granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain.
  245
  Approximately 100 people are estimated to have been granted asylum after appeal in 1994. Information prior to 1994 is not available.

  Arrest Warrants
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants of arrest for non-payment of compensation were issued in each police authority in the latest year for which latest information is available; if he will give the numbers of these warrants which were not executed; and how many were subsequently re-issued. [4282]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohue
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4225]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total Visits

  Visits abroad

  Percentage

  Home Secretary

  69

  5

  7.2

  Baroness Blatch

  17

  0

  0

  Ann Widdecombe

  25

  3

  12

  Mr. David Maclean

  26

  0

  0

  Mr. Nicholas Baker (to 17 October)

  5

  1

  20

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (from 17 October)

  4

  0

  0

  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) joined the Department on 28 November 1995 but did not make any ministerial visits between then and 1 December 1995.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston dated 29 August. [4529]

  Mr. Howard
  I wrote to the hon. Member about the case of Mr. Paul Malone today.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more people aged 65 years or over would qualify for the mobility component of disability living allowance, at the higher and lower rate, respectively, if the age limit were removed; how many of them would be receiving attendance allowance or disability living allowance under the existing rules; how many people aged 65 years or over, by five year age groups, are now receiving the mobility component at the higher and lower rate respectively. [2739]
  246
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA) recipients aged over 65 receiving the mobility component

  Age

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  65–69

  185,600

  12,200

  70–74

  81,100

  None

  75–79

  22,500

  None

  80+

  2,700

  None

  All

  291,900

  12,200

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. sample (31 August 1995).

  Estimate extra number of people likely to qualify for the DLA mobility component if the upper age limit were removed

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  2,000,000

  60,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000, they are speculative and subject to very substantial margins of error.

  2. Insufficient information is held to estimate how many of these people would be receiving DLA or AA under existing rules.

  Source:

  DLA statistics May 1995, OPCS Disability Survey 1985, Government Actuaries Department population projection 1992.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3810]

  Mr. Burt
  The first award of a PFI contract for the replacement of the national insurance recording system was made in April 1995. Costs from public funds will not arise until the system has been developed and successfully delivered to the Department. The total value of the project based on the public funded option is estimated at £150 million.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3832]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Information Helplines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been(a) the costs of establishing, operating and publicising the information helplines established by his Department and (b) the number of calls made to each of these lines since their establishment. [4448]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 3 April 1995,Official Report, column 960–61.
  247
  Such further information as is available is as follows

  DSS HEADQUARTERS
  Number of calls January 1995–December 1995: 64,151
  The telephone costs for the public enquiry office cannot be distinguished from overall telephone costs for the building from which they operate.

  The annual staffing costs are £60,000.
  BENEFITS AGENCY Freeline (free phone)Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 14 November 1995: 2.7 million Annual cost of call charges: £1.1 million Annual running costs (staff): £4.9 million Benefit Enquiry Line (free phone)Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995: 0.9 million Annual cost of call charges: £0.75 million Annual running costs (staff): £2.72 million Family Credit Advice Line (full rate)Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995: 2.2 million Annual cost of call charges: nil Annual running costs (staff): £1.6 million Disability Living Allowance Line (subsidised)Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995: 2 million Annual cost of call charges: £0.072 million Annual running costs (staff); £1.62 million Note:The Pension Advice line (now Pensions Direct) which had been included in the last answer is not considered as solely an information enquiry line. The line is a dedicated service offering a facility for customers to notify change of circumstances.CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY Breakdown of figures for the Social Security Advice Line (SSALE) which were not available in March are as follows:Number of calls April 1994 to March 1995: 225,124 April 1995 to November 1995: 216,391
  The operating costs for 1994–95 were £240,558. During this financial year the accommodation occupied by SSALE in Glasgow underwent a major refurbishment including the installation of new telecommunications systems. The cost of this work amounted to £145,000.
  WAR PENSIONS AGENCY Number of calls January 1995–December 1995: 452,780
  Costs of establishing the technical system in 1992 were £114,941 and the annual maintenance cost is £9,700.

  The Helpline number appears on all agency publicity including leaflets and posters. It is therefore difficult to quantify costs specific to Helpline.
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY Number of calls 1 June 1994–1 December 1995: 901,517 248
  The individual cost of publicising the national enquiry line—NEL—is not available. Publicity information concerning NEL is contained within other CSA publicity material. The cost of operating NEL in 1994–95 was £1,123,895.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the results of the call back survey carried out by his Department into customer satisfaction with the operation of his Department's inquiry line; what action his Department took in response to the findings of this survey; what organisation carried out this survey; and how much was paid to that organisation. [4457]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  During the last 12 months no external call back surveys have been undertaken in respect of departmental helplines.

  Internal surveys are commonplace and customer reaction is analysed and fed into the strategic planning process with a view to further enhancing customer service.

  Frozen Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefits that have never been uprated since their introduction were not uprated in his recent statement; and what are his reasons for freezing them. [4123]

  Mr. Heald
  The following benefits have not been uprated since they were introduced: widow's payment, Christmas bonus and age addition to retirement pension.

  Widows payment is only one part of widow's benefit. Widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance have been uprated regularly. Although the Christmas bonus has not been uprated, it is now paid to a wider target group of around 13 million people. Similarly, to increase the retirement pension age addition would be a poor use of resources. Pensioners over 80 who receive an income-related benefit will gain from the increase in higher pensioner premium. From April 1996 the value of this premium will be £25.90 for a single person and £37.05 for a couple.

  Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors underlie his policy in respect of uprating(a) lone parent premium, (b) one parent benefit, (c) earning limit for invalid care allowance and (d) social fund cold weather payment.[4124]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This year's uprating statement combines further measures to control the growth of Social Security spending with action to strengthen work incentives.

  The lone parent premium and one parent benefit will not be increased in April 1996. The aim over time is to bring the benefits which go to lone parent families more in line with those that go to couples with children. Lone parents will benefit from the increases that go to all families next year.

  Invalid care allowance will be uprated along with other benefits next year. The earnings limit will be kept under review.
  249
  Social fund cold weather payments are intended to give extra help to particularly vulnerable people for higher heating costs as a result of a sustained period of very cold weather. Payments increased from £6 to £7 from 1 November 1994 to reflect the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. The Chancellor announced on 8 December 1994 that they would increase again from £7 to £8.50 from 1 November 1995. This is a 40 per cent. increase since April 1994.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4220]

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is set out in the table:

  Minister

  UK visits

  Foreign visits

  Percentage that were foreign visits

  Mr. Lilley

  6

  1

  17

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

  7

  –

  –

  Mr. Burt

  21

  1

  5

  Mr. Evans

  10

  –

  –

  Mr. Mitchell

  8

  –

  –

  Mr. Heald

  10

  1

  10

  Invalidity Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total cost of the invalidity benefit resulting from injuries caused in road traffic accidents in each of the last five years. [4345]

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

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on the national insurance fund, over the next five years if all those with an appropriate personal pension and an annual income of less than £10,000, were to opt back into SERPS. [4463]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Great Britain

  Year

  Savings to the national insurance fund (£million)

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  400

  1997–98

  400

  1998–99

  350

  1999–2000

  350

  Notes:

  1. It has been assumed that the £10,000 is a fixed cash amount each year and earnings and prices assumptions are consistent with the recent 1995 Budget Statement.

  250

  2. Currently, the rebate paid to a personal pension account is based on class 1 reckonable earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit. The rate of rebate is 4.8 per cent. of these band earnings plus 1 per cent. of band earnings for those aged 30 and over.

  3. From April 1997, the APP rebates will become age-related. Because the Secretary of State has not yet determined the level of these rebates, the amounts shown in the table have been calculated by using the rates in the Government Actuary's recent consultative note.

  4. Because the rebate in respect of a year's earnings is not paid into the personal pension account until the following year, there is no effect on the first year of the above table.

  5. The figures have been rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Employees (Sickness)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many days off sick were taken by employees in the private sector in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93, (d) 1993–94 and (e) 1994–95 indicating (i) the total figures and (ii) the average for each employee. [3507]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following information is available from the labour force survey for the number of days lost per week through sickness absence by employees in the private sector.

  Great Britain (not seasonally adjusted)

  Days lost per week in quarter

  Quarter

  Total (millions of days)

  Per employee (days) days)

  Spring 1994

  2.1

  0.13

  Spring 1995

  2.2

  0.14

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the organisations and governments consulted by Her Majesty's Government in compiling the British submission to the World court on the legality of nuclear weapons. [3988]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), on 28 February 1994, column 547, and 14 June 1994, column 405.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many EU governments gave evidence to the World Court on the legality of nuclear weapons; how many asked the court to rule that they were legal; and how many asked the court to refuse to answer the question. [3989]

  Mr. Davis
  Eight EU Governments made written statements in relation to the requests for advisory opinions by the World Health Organisation and the UN General Assembly; four Governments also made oral statements. Six argued that the court should not answer the requests. five further arguing, on the substance, that the use or
  251
  threat of use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited as such under international law. Copies of the written statements will be placed in the Library of the House. Transcripts of the oral statements can be obtained from the International Court of Justice.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3967]

  Mr. Hanley
  (a) In answering this question the Department has used the definition of consultancy as set out in the efficiency scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants.

  For the year 1994–95 the diplomatic wing spent £76,887 on management consultants. The ODA spent £847, 545 on consultants assisting on management issues.

  More detailed information on individual contracts and the previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The Department does not hold information on outside organisations in the form requested. Invoices from outside organisations are not broken down to distinguish between provision of services and goods. Therefore the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  (c) Information on individuals employed by the Department can be found in the civil service staff post summary tables. These can be found in the House Libraries. The purpose of their employment is to assist the Department to attain its aims and objectives as set out in the departmental report. The costs of employing individuals can be found in the departmental report.

  European Commission (London Office)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed at the London office of the European Commission. [2989]

  Mr. David Davis
  This information is available from the European Commission office at:

  No. 8 Storey's Gate

  LONDON

  SWIP 3AT

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what authority the London office of the European Commission produces and circulates pro-European Union information, with particular reference to circulation to schools; and if he will make a statement. [2990]

  Mr. Davis
  The Commission office in London produces and circulates information about the European Union on its own authority. Resources for Commission 252
  activities are agreed by the Council and European Parliament, acting as the budgetary authority.

  Egypt (Islamic Terrorists)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Egypt concerning the activities of Islamic extremists based in London; and if he will make a statement. [3973]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this with the Egyptian Government during his visit to Cairo on 10 to 11 November. We are concerned at the unwelcome presence of foreign extremists in the United Kingdom who abuse our traditional freedoms. We are in close contact with a number of foreign Governments who share our concern. Any evidence of violations of UK law will be passed to the police for action.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3821]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 November 1995,Official Report, column 694.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3826]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97, which was laid before the House on 28th November 1995.

  Reflections Group
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the text of the final revision of the report of the reflections group to be considered at the European Council in Madrid on 15 to 16 December to be(a) published and (b) widely available in the United Kingdom. [4469]

  Mr. David Davis
  The final report of the study group was finalised on 5 December. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The report has been deposited for parliamentary scrutiny. Copies of the report are available on request from the European Union Department (Internal) in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the report is available on the Internet from http://www.fco.gov.UK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Papers
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the
  253
  House of Commons Commission, if discussions have yet been concluded on a new long-term agreement with Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the printing and publication of House documents, as referred to in his written answer of 17 May 1995, Official Report, column 237; and what the consequences of that agreement will be for the sale prices of Hansard and other House papers. [4090]

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission has now approved the terms of a new supply and service agreement between the House and HMSO, which will take effect on 1 January 1996. As a result, the House will no longer purchase its documents from HMSO at the face price but instead will make block payments based on production costs. The level of these block payments will be re-negotiated annually, in accordance with principles set out in the agreement. In calendar year 1996 the block payments will total £11,969,000, which is broadly similar to the total sums paid to HMSO by the Vote Office and other House Departments in respect of the documents in question in each of the previous two years.

  The financial settlement for 1996 also provides for the following reductions in the sale price of House documents:
  Daily Hansard: £5 instead of £7.50 Select Committee Reports: 20 per cent. reduction on current price scales Bills: 10 per cent. reduction on current price scales Weekly Information Bulletin: £1.50 instead of £2.30
  Standing Committee Hansards will in future be priced on a scale according to page content, with a maximum price of £5 compared with the current fixed price of £7.50.

  The reduction in the price of the weekly Hansard from £22 to £12, which was announced in my answer of 17 May and came into effect on 6 June, will continue to apply.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what consideration the House of Commons Commission has given to the possible safeguards that might be required to protect the future provision of printing services to Parliament in the event of the privatisation of HMSO? [4091]

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission and the Finance and Services Committee have been giving the most active consideration to these matters and I hope to be able to give a more detailed reply to the hon. Member shortly.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3838]
  254
  Mr. Willetts
  The Government's metropolitan telecommunications service is already largely provided by the private sector, which owns much of the infrastructure. The Office of Public Service hopes to involve private finance further in the provision of the software used by Government Departments. This could involve capital expenditure of some £1.5 million in 1996–97.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3804]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office—including the Office of Public Service—HMSO and the Central Office of Information have not yet approved any schemes under the private finance initiative.

  Photocopiers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new photocopiers his Department has(a) purchased and (b) leased since July 1995; and at what cost. [4291]

  Mr. Willetts
  Since 1 July 1995 the Cabinet Office and its agencies have purchased one additional photocopier at a cost of £895 and leased 18 photocopiers, 11 of which replaced existing machines, at a rental cost £50,799 per annum.

  In the same period, HMSO and the Central Office of Information purchased four photocopiers, two of which replaced existing machines, at a cost of £17,817 and leased 14 to replace existing machines at a rental cost of £31,570 per annum.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which bodies are covered by the citizens charter. [4855]

  Mr. Freeman
  The citizens charter applies to all public sector bodies and privatised regulated utilities where there is an element of monopoly.

  The Director General of Telecommunications is charged with a statutory duty to promote the interests of consumers. The Director General has advised me that a genuinely competitive market is developing for telecommunications. For these reasons, I no longer regard BT as falling within the scope of the charter programme.

TREASURY

  Employment (East Midlands)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total number of(a) full-time and part-time jobs and (b) full-time and part-time temporary jobs in the east midlands region, together with a breakdown of occupations. [4071]
  255
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest available information is shown in the following table.

  Employees in East Midlands region: spring 1995 (thousands)1

  Occupation

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Not permanent

  All

  Not permanent

  Managers and administrators

  221

  2—

  20

  2—

  Professional occupations

  120

  2—

  24

  11

  Associate professor and technical occupations

  114

  2—

  26

  2—

  Clerical, secretarial occupations

  178

  12

  70

  2—

  Craft and related occupations

  208

  2—

  12

  2—

  Personal protective occupations

  83

  2—

  82

  2—

  Sales occupations

  67

  2—

  74

  2—

  Plant and machine operatives

  185

  10

  22

  2—

  Other occupations

  66

  2—

  79

  2—

  Total

  1,243

  48

  409

  48

  1Not seasonally adjusted.

  2— denotes less than 10,000 in cell.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3835]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", and, which has been laid before Parliament on 28 November 1995.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3807]

  Mr. Jack
  PFI payments are for service delivery, not capital procurement. They comprise a mixture of charges for capital and revenue. Value for money is ensured through the competitive process. It is not always commercially appropriate to disclose a public sector comparator, nor to place undue reliance on illustrative

  Post Budget pricing policies may not mirror the duty changes precisely

  RSP p/litre

  Total tax as percentage of RSP

  Excise duty as percentage of RSP

  VAT as percentage of RSP

  Excise duty p/litre

  VAT p/litre

  Leaded

  61.29

  78.72

  63.83

  14.89

  39.12

  9.13

  Super unleaded

  62.02

  70.20

  55.30

  14.89

  34.30

  9.24

  Unleaded

  55.06

  77.19

  62.30

  14.89

  34.30

  8.20

  Diesel

  55.51

  76.68

  61.79

  14.89

  34.30

  8.27

  City diesel

  54.9

  77.37

  62.48

  14.89

  34.30

  8.18

  LPG auto

  39.1

  50.93

  36.04

  14.89

  14.09

  5.82

  The following figures for compressed natural gas are based on a maximum retail price as at 28 November 1995;

  (CNG) Compressed natural gas

  RSP p/kilo

  Total tax as percentage of RSP

  Excise duty as percentage of RSP

  VAT as percentage of RSP

  Excise duty p/kilo

  VAT p/kilo

  Pre-Budget

  56.4

  73.65

  58.76

  14.89

  33.14

  8.40

  Post-Budget

  56.4

  64.84

  49.95

  14.89

  28.17

  8.40

  256
  calculations. Guidance on public sector comparators is contained in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the guidance his Department issues to each Government department and agency regarding procurement from SMEs. [3928]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following guidance has been issued:
  "Size may be relevant to the selection of tenderers, but only insofar as it is necessary to assess whether or not the job is within their capability. Once that assessment has been made, relative size is likely to be less significant than skills, efficiency, experience and reliability —characteristics relevant to value for money but just as likely to be found in small firms as in large and particularly relevant in the procurement of services."
  The central unit on procurement has also issued a series of best practice guidance, much of which is relevant to procurement from SMEs. Copies of these guidances have been placed in the Library. In addition, CUP has written to all major Departments asking them to provide examples of their procurement literature on access for small firms to Government business. This is currently being reviewed. CUP will then circulate to Departments the best examples relevant to SME needs.

  Fuel Duty
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham, (Mr. Bottomley) of 28 November,Official Report, column 537, on fuels, if he will give the same figures updated to account for the Budget measures; and if he will list the figures for natural gas used as a road fuel, (a) before and (b) after the Budget. [4061]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following updated figures are based on the pre-Budget average retail selling prices adjusted to reflect the actual duty changes announced in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement:

  I am advised that suppliers' post-Budget pricing policy has not yet been determined.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4221]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have made seven ministerial visits, all of which were abroad.

  The Paymaster General has made four visits, of which two were abroad. The Financial Secretary has made four visits and the Economic Secretary has made three visits, none of which was abroad. The Chief Secretary has made no visits.

  Share Ownership
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the adult population owned one or more shares(a) in the latest year for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 1970. [4028]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: The information sought is not available for the years 1970–78 or 1980–86. Data for the remaining years are set out in the table:

  Year

  Percentage of adults owning shares

  1979

  7

  1987

  19

  1988

  20

  1989

  20

  1990

  24

  1991

  25

  1992

  22

  1993

  22

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what analysis he has made of the effects of the proposed landfill tax on the house building industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [3931]

  (2) what analysis he has made of the effect of the proposed landfill tax on the construction industry; and if he will make a statement; [3930]

  (3) what analysis he has made of the effect of the proposed landfill tax on the house building industry; and if he will make a statement. [3932]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In developing proposals for a landfill tax, the Government have had regard to the effects of the tax upon all sectors of the economy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that the tax should not impose extra costs on business overall, and that the revenue raised will be used to make compensatory reductions in employers' national insurance contributions. The main rate of employer NICs 258
  will be reduced by 0.2 per cent. in 1997–98. Moreover, business that are successful in reducing the amount of waste sent for landfill disposal by making alternative waste management arrangement may reduce thier overall costs of landfill.

  Single-parent Families
  Ms Harman
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer how many children have been in single-parent families where the parent is unemployed in each of the last five years. [4109]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: The following information is available from the "Labour Force Survey".

  Great Britain (not seasonally adjusted)

  Quarter

  Number of children aged 15 or under with single parent who is ILO unemployed

  Winter 1993–94

  246,000

  Winter 1994–95

  231,000

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the time needed to introduce a single currency after a decision has been made to introduce it. [2770]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The European Monetary Institute, in its report on the changeover to the single currency published on 14 November 1995, considered that a period of up to three years would be required to introduce single currency notes and coins after the start of the third stage of economic and monetary union. It considered that the period between the decision to move to a single currency and the start of the third stage would need to be about one year in length. The Government believe that these are probably reasonable estimates of the lengths of time required, bearing in mind the necessary legal and practical steps, although the actual times would depend on many factors.

  Under protocol 1 1 annexed to the EC treaty, the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of Economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom of adopting the single currency. [2769]

  Mrs. Knight
  If the United Kingdom participates in the third stage of economic and monetary union, there will he transitional costs to business and public authorities, associated with the changeover to the single currency.
  259
  These potential costs would be one of the factors that would need to be taken into account, at the appropriate time, when the Government make their assessment of whether it is in the United Kingdom's interest to join a move to the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Under protocol 11 annexed to the EC treaty, the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of Economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  City Diesel
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the short-term cost of reducing tax on city diesel by 2p a litre. [3730]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimates of the revenue effects of a 2p tax reduction for city diesel will be extremely sensitive to assumptions about current market shares, other low-sulphur products, and how quickly supplies of city diesel could respond to increased demand.

  Ways and Means Advances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the outstanding Ways and Means advances from the Bank of England to the Government at the end of each financial year since 1978. [4327]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The outstanding Ways and Means advances from the Bank of England to the Government at the end of each financial year since 1978 is shown in the table.

  Outstanding ways and means advances from the Bank of England

  Date

  Balance outstanding (£000s)

  31 March 1978

  3,487,280

  31 March 1979

  5,435,540

  31 March 1980

  3,026,435

  31 March 1981

  3,450,705

  31 March 1982

  908,040

  31 March 1983

  1,983,009

  31 March 1984

  Nil

  31 March 1985

  Nil

  31 March 1986

  Nil

  31 March 1987

  2,707,405

  31 March 1988

  4,638,116

  31 March 1989

  6,255,987

  30 March 1990

  5,962,854

  28 March 1991

  6,918,245

  31 March 1992

  7,187,231

  31 March 1993

  3,062,154

  31 March 1994

  6,750,812

  31 March 1995

  15,904,279

  The increase in 1995 follows a change in the funding rule in 1994 to include gilt sales to the banking sector, and a one-off corrective adjustment.

  Monetary Aggregates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the velocity of circulation and 260
  the increases or decreases in (a) M3, (b) M4, (c) MO and (d) the rate of inflation for each year since 1975. [4331]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The velocity of circulation of the monetary aggregate is calculated as a ratio—GDP divided by the stock of the relevant monetary aggregate.

  M3 is no longer compiled as a monetary aggregate. Stock and velocity of circulation figures for MO and M4 are shown in table 6.2 of the CSO monthly publication Economic Trends. Data on the RPI and the underlying rate of inflation—RPI excluding mortgage interest payments—are shown on table 3.1 in Economic Trends. Economic Trends is available from the House of Commons Library.

  National Grid
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of the expected rebate to domestic consumers arising from the sale of the national grid which will be accounted for by reduced VAT(a) per customer and (b) in total. [3389]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: Eligible customers will each receive a net rebate of £50.56 from the regional electricity companies and as a consequence the amount of VAT on their bills will be reduced by £4.04. For the comparatively small number of customers who use pre-payment meters or tokens a VAT-inclusive refund of £54.60 will be made. The total reduction in VAT revenue resulting from the rebates will be approximately £87 million.

  Personal Tax Allowances
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy to allow an additional personal tax allowance to a woman whose husband is permanently disabled and who has a dependent child; [3621]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the additional personal tax allowance currently available to a man whose wife is disabled and who has a dependent child indicating the considerations underlying the reasons why the same facility is not allowed to a woman in the same circumstances. [3622]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The additional personal allowance for husbands with totally incapacitated wives dates from a time when social security provision for the disabled was much less comprehensive than it is now. The Government believe that, in general, it is much better to help both men and women with disabled partners through the social security system than through tax reliefs, and a generous range of social security benefits are available today.

  European Union Contributions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum of money has been allocated in the recent Budget as the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the EU. [4049]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: UK contributions to the EC are reflected in the

  261
  public expenditure plans in net rather than gross form. The figures for net payments to European Community institutions for the financial years 1995–96 to 1998–99 are set out in table 6.6 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (House of Commons No. 30). The corresponding estimates of the UK's gross contribution after abatement, along with the figure for net payments, are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  UK gross contribution after abatement

  Net payment to EC institutions

  1995–s96

  7,668

  2,894

  1996–97

  7,734

  2,304

  1997–98

  7,858

  2,496

  1998–99

  7,926

  2,498

  Further details will be published in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's next departmental report.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  New Year's Eve (Trafalgar Square)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to change the arrangements for boarding up the fountains in Trafalgar square for the new year's eve celebrations. [4915]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since 1983, when the decision was taken to board up the fountains in Trafalgar square on new year's eve on the ground of public safety, the policing of the event has altered significantly with a great emphasis on the use of police cordons. For the past two years the police have cordoned off the central area of Trafalgar square including the column and fountains. I have therefore decided—in consultation with the police—not to board up the fountains for this new year's eve celebrations.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in her Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4223]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have undertaken 55 ministerial visits between 6 July and I December, none of which were overseas.

  The Minister of State, has undertaken 17 ministerial visits in the same period, 5.8 per cent. of those were overseas.

  Lord Inglewood has undertaken 71 ministerial visits, of which 19.7 per cent. were overseas.

TRANSPORT

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the data in respect of the punctuality of trains on the midland main line from January 1994 to date on a monthly basis. [3565]

  Mr. Watts
  The data requested is shown in the table:

  Percentage of trains "on time"1 on Midland Mainline2

  Year/period3

  Percentage

  1994

  1

  86.3

  2

  81.9

  3

  90.9

  4

  92.3

  5

  96.1

  6

  92.8

  7

  85.6

  8

  92.4

  9

  89.6

  10

  88.9

  11

  83.6

  12

  91.6

  13

  88.0

  1995

  1

  91.9

  2

  89.4

  3

  92.0

  4

  93.0

  5

  91.2

  6

  93.2

  7

  86.9

  8

  87.1

  9

  92.3

  10

  94.0

  11

  88.9

  1 Arriving within 10 minutes of the scheduled time.

  2 The figures relate to all services on Monday to Saturday inclusive.

  3Data are supplied for successive four-week periods rather than monthly.

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution regarding increases in fuel duty; [4404]

  (2) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the duty on unleaded petrol; [4391]

  (3) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution relating to the present net level of support for public transport; [4371]

  (4) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution of a Government contribution towards the operating costs of companies carrying freight by water; [4395]

  (5) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the annual excise duty on cars; [4406]
  263
  (6) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on a cradle to grave for vehicle recycling; [4390]

  (7) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on incentives to operators of heavy vehicles in urban areas to use natural gas powered vehicles; [4409]

  (8) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution in respect of vehicle excise duty on heavy vehicles; [4366]

  (9) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on grants for transferring freight from road to coastwise shipping; [4394]

  (10) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the EC directive on fuel prices; [4405]

  (11) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the introduction of a levy on fuel purchase by airlines; [4392]

  (12) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the criteria for the public contribution to railway costs; [4372]

  (13) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on modifications to the tax rules relating to company cars; [4407]

  (14) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on applications for grants in support of trans-European transport networks; [4398]

  (15) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on European legislation on dimension for containers and bodies for use in intermodal transport; [4363]

  (16) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution regarding EC legislation on the annual duty paid by operators of heavy goods vehicles; [4399]

  (17) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on regional planning conference; [4419]

  (18) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on thresholds for the major pollutants; [4427]

  (19) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the sale of unleaded super premium petrol; [4368]
  264
  (20) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the results of the monitoring of PPG 13's effectiveness be published and that any amendment required be made without delay; [4415]

  (21) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order be reviewed; [4423]

  (22) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the programme of strengthening bridges to carry 40-tonne lorries should be scaled down; [4431]

  (23) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on pay-at-the-pump schemes; [4408]

  (24) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution relating to decisions to introduce road pricing schemes; [4393]

  (25) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on advertising the environmental and safety effects of driving styles; [4367]

  (26) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on cycling facilities; [4432]

  (27) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the rules of procedure governing inquiries into trunk road proposals and compulsory purchase orders; [4381]

  (28) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on supplementing recent guidance on land use policies and the land use implications of transport policies; [4416]

  (29) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on suitable sites for new wharves and rail depots; [4424]

  (30) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the permitted benzene content of petrol; [4369]

  (31) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on safe cycle routes in urban areas; [4377]

  (32) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of royal commission on environmental pollution on forms of collaboration similar to the London air quality network unit; [4428]

  (33) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on

  265
  environmental pollution on the use of barriers to absorb and deflect sound; [4385]

  (34) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on eligibility for insulation grants under the Land Compensation Act 1973; [4412]

  (35) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that regional planning conference and Government regional offices should jointly assess long-distance routes; [4420]

  (36) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the environmental assessment of tolling proposals; [4379]

  (37) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on decision making on transport policy; [4383]

  (38) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the duties of local authorities in respect of air quality; [4410]

  (39) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on charging developers for external costs of induced traffic; [4418]

  (40) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the consultative forum established under the fifth environment action programme; [4426]

  (41) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on noise certification standards for new aircraft; [4375]

  (42) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that all significant planning applications should contain an analysis of the transport implications; [4422]

  (43) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the Government maintain restrictions on access by heavy goods vehicles to Greater London; [4430]

  (44) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the development of electric power for public transport, fleet vehicles and small vehicles; [4387]

  (45) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on information from manufacturers about the combustion products of fuel additives; [4414]

  (46) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that local authorities should provide networks of safe pedestrian routes; [4433]
  266
  (47) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on planning conditions for coastal super-quarries; [4382]

  (48) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on air quality targets for specific planning area; [4417]

  (49) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the committee of green Ministers publish periodical reports; [4425]

  (50) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on collaboration with the oil industry and vehicle manufacturers in respect of specifications for cleaner fuels; [4370]

  (51) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on a noise levy at airports; [4374]

  (52) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on research into the possible effects of supersonic aircrafts on the stratosphere; [4378]

  (53) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that urban authorities adopt a presumption against access for heavy good vehicles over 17 tonnes; [4429]

  (54) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on environmental assessment of roads proposals; [4386]

  (55) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that guidance on development control be based on the principle of preventing exposure of noise levels which exceed proposed targets; [4413]

  (56) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution for a right of appeal by third parties against decisions contrary to up-to-date development plans; [4421]

  (57) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that the Government should work with regional planning conferences, passenger transport authorities or passenger transport executives and the private sector on parking strategies; [4376]

  (58) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution that trunk roads should be part of local authority structure plans; [4380]

  (59) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on comparative studies of bypasses and traffic management measures; [4384]
  267
  (60) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the qualifying level for insulation grants; [4411]

  (61) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on joint council meetings of environmental and transport Ministers;[4397]

  (62) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on research into the health effects of transport-related pollutants;[4389]

  (63) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on bus lanes and bus priority schemes in urban areas; [4365]

  (64) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on legislation to allow impoundment of illegal operators' vehicles; [4364]

  (65) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the environmental assessment of measures to promote competition in air services in Europe; [4373]

  (66) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on fuel cell research; [4388]

  (67) what response he has made to the recommendation in the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the transport implications of Government Departments legal and policy responsibilities. [4396]

  Mr. Norris
  Decisions on the Government's response will be taken in the light of the national debate on transport policy.

  Forth Bridge
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Health and Safety Executive to produce its report into the structural condition of the Forth bridge. [4436]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that HSE hopes to be able to publish its report early in the new year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4219]

  Sir George Young
  The details of visits, excluding attendance at EC Transport Councils, are as follows:
  268

  Total number of visits

  Of which, number abroad

  Secretary of State

  15

  —

  Minister for Railways and Roads

  17

  3

  Minister for Local Transport, Road Safety and Transport in London

  15

  2

  Minister for Shipping and Aviation

  11

  1

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls have been made to the cones hotline in each calendar month since its establishment; how many calls have been under the remit of the cones hotline; how many calls have resulted in cones being removed from the public highway; how much it has cost his Department to operate the hotline; what changes he plans to make to its operation; what assessment he has made of it; and if he will make a statement. [4435]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 6 November at column 759, which answers most of the points that he has raised. My Department does not have a record of the number of calls made to the cones hotline in each calendar month since its establishment in June 1992, but information from the Highways Agency on the number of calls made each month this year is as follows:

  Date

  Number

  Cones hotline

  January 1995

  900

  February 1995

  750

  March 1995

  450

  April 1995

  1,100

  May 1995

  1,000

  June 1995

  1,050

  July 1995

  800

  August 1995

  300

  Highways Agency information line

  September 1995

  800

  October 1995

  1,150

  November 1995

  1,250

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 50 calls.

  Rail Accidents
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving fatalities and serious injury to passengers there have been(a) on the railway network and (b) within the ScotRail network in each of the last five years. [4439]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of accidents. The tables show the information requested.
  269

  Fatal and Major Injuries to Passengers

  All railway network1

  Year

  Fatal

  Major injury

  1990

  37

  224

  1991

  8

  92

  1991–92

  31

  192

  1992–93

  18

  238

  1993–94

  16

  205

  1994–95

  17

  204

  Scotland only1

  Year

  Fatal

  Major injury

  1990

  0

  27

  1991

  0

  3

  1991–92

  2

  25

  1992–93

  1

  27

  1993–94

  1

  27

  1994–95

  1

  19

  Notes:

  1990 calendar year.

  1991 covers the 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991.

  1991–92 onwards periods are in the financial year 1 April to 31 March.

  1Excludes metropolitan and minor railways.

  Oily Waste Discharges
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the ports in the United Kingdom that do not have oily waste discharge facilities available to vessels. [4200]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 14 June 1995 at column 532.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many aerial surveillance sorties were flown to check for oil spillages around the United Kingdom coast in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) in 1995 to date; [4199]

  (2) if he will list those vessels that have since the publication of the Donaldson report been (a) identified discharging oily wastes illegally at sea and (b) prosecuted for those offences; and what fines have been imposed. [4197]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 6 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about aerial surveillance to check for oil spillages and vessels which have been identified as discharging oily wastes illegally at sea.
  The number of aerial surveillance flights to check for oil spillages around the United Kingdom coast were as follows:

  Year

  Ship patrol flights

  Oil rig patrol flights

  Operational flights

  Total

  1993

  91

  57

  77

  225

  1994

  98

  57

  54

  209

  19951

  120

  53

  65

  238

  1 To 30 November.

  270 Since May 1994 the Agency's Marine Pollution Control Unite (MPCU) has identified 47 vessels as possibly being responsible for illegal discharges. These were referred for Port State Control inspections and of the 47 identified cases, 27 are currently open, 19 have been closed, either because no offence was committed or because of lack of evidence, and one has been prosecuted.The prosecution resulted in the master of the JENCLIPPER, being fined £4,000 in October 1995 for the illegal discharge of engine washings. In the absence of conclusive evidence the names of the other vessels cannot be released.Prosecutions are also brought by other organisations including local authorities, port and harbour authorities and environmental bodies. Further information is contained in annual reports prepared by the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea (ACOPS). Copies are available in the House of Commons' Library.
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he plans to implement the Donaldson report recommendation that the cost of the use of oily waste reception facilities in ports should be included in harbour dues; [4201]

  (2) if he will introduce a system of waste auditing in ports to improve the enforcement of discharge limits for oily wastes from shipping. [4198]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 1 and 2 November at columns 309 and 466.

  Peakes Parkway
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been lent to Humberside county council and its successor authorities for the construction of the Peakes parkway in all its stages and what is the(a) duration of the loan and (b) the annual interest charge in percentage and cost terms to date. [4332]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total financial support that my Department has given to Humberside county council for Peakes parkway is £8.287 million—£2.869 million of transport supplementary grant and £5.418 million in the form of borrowing approvals. The amount to be allocated to the scheme in 1996–97 will be announced later this month as part of the local transport settlement.

  The Government do not specify either the duration or interest rate of any loans that result from borrowing approvals issued to local authorities. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Road Fatalities (Children)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will(a) compare and (b) make a statement on the changes by category of road death, of those killed under the age of 15 years between (a) 1983 and 1985 and (b) 1992 and 1994. [3786]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  271
  The total number of children killed fell in both periods, although at a slower rate between 1992 and 1994. Reduction in casualties for the most vulnerable categories,

  Road deaths in Great Britain: children under 15 years of age by road user type: 1983–85 and 1992–94

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Average 1983–85

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Average 1992–94

  Pedestrians

  360

  333

  305

  333

  170

  153

  147

  157

  Pedal cyclists

  87

  96

  66

  83

  38

  33

  34

  35

  TWMV

  1

  1

  4

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Car

  77

  84

  69

  77

  50

  75

  74

  66

  PSV

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  4

  4

  3

  LGV

  2

  2

  4

  3

  3

  1

  2

  2

  HGV

  1

  2

  5

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Other

  5

  2

  2

  3

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  536

  521

  457

  505

  268

  270

  265

  268

  Railtrack
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that Railtrack is expending fully the receipts from track access charges on the maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure and buildings; [3470]

  (2) what is the total sum collected in track access charges from each of the train operating companies by Railtrack; and what proportion of the track access charges so collected have been expended on the maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure and buildings to date in each train operating company's area of operation; [3465]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that Railtrack is undertaking the work necessary to achieve prescribed standards of track and signal system maintenance, with special reference to the renewal of such infrastructure assets by modern equivalent forms. [3473]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is not required to expend income from track access charges only on the maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure and buildings. Railtrack does not publish income figures by train operators, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis),Official Report, 28 November 1995, column 549.

  Access charges for the period 1995–96 to 2000–01 have been approved by the regulator at a level which takes into account the extent of Railtrack's proposed renewal programme. The overall level of charges has been set with regard to Railtrack's total renewals expenditure, including major renewal projects, across the entire network. The nature and priority of projects is a matter for railtrack's commercial and operational judgment.

  The Rail Regulator will satisfy himself that Railtrack does not increase its profits by reducing expenditure on the renewal of assets below the level needed to deliver its obligations to operators, or compromise the maintenance of safety standards.

  Track access charges are not only used to cover the maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure and buildings. Railtrack does not publish income figures by train operator, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North on 28 November.
  272
  pedestrians and cyclists, continued in the second period but in-car casualties increased. I regard further improvements in child road safety as a high priority.

  Tree Surgery
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had regarding delays in paying small business contractors for tree surgery and felling along trunk roads; if his Department has a time target for such payments; and if he will make a statement. [4012]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 6 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations he has had regarding delays in paying small business contractors for tree surgery and felling along England's trunk roads, if his Department has a time target for such payments, and if he will make a statement.I am not aware of any representations regarding delays in paying small contractors for tree surgery and tree felling on trunk roads but if you have a particular case in mind, and can let me have details, I will investigate.I am, however, very conscious that good cash flow is the life blood of many small businesses and that late payment is a common cause of concern in many industries. I am particularly aware of the problem of late payment of specialist engineering sub-contractors by main contractors and since 1992 we have included "prompt payment" provisions in our contracts in an effort to speed up the flow of payments. Unfortunately, these measures have had little beneficial effect and we are currently looking at other ways in which the problem might be tackled within our policy of having a single point of contractual responsibility whenever possible As for direct payments to contractors, the Highways Agency and its predecessor organisations have earned a good reputation for timely payment within the periods provided for under the terms and conditions of our contracts—generally 30 days from receipt of demands for payment. That is a reputation which I am determined to preserve.

  Chiswick Flyover
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has(a) to close and (b) restrict traffic over the Chiswick flyover in the medium term. [3851]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  273
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 6 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety and Transport in London, Mr Steven Norris, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has (a) to close and (b) restrict traffic over the Chiswick flyover in the medium term.My reply related to work to the M4 elevated section which extends from Junction 1 (east of Chiswick roundabout) to Boston Manor playing fields.The M4 elevated section is closed in one direction on a six weekly cycle eight times a year to enable routine maintenance to be undertaken safely. We are taking advantage of these closures to replace leaking joints.Essential work to replace bearings at the Boston Manor Viaduct is scheduled to commence in March 1996 and expected to last for months. Much of this will be carried out without the need for closures. A limited number of full carriageway night time closures at weekends and partial night time carriageway closures from Monday to Thursday will be required.Investigations to prepare a programme of repairs to the M4 elevated section are ongoing. It is expected that most, if not all of the ensuing works will be able to be completed without daytime closures of the M4 during the working week. However they will require night time closures of the motorway.Details of works and their likely impact will be published well in advance to advise local residents and to allow road users to plan their journeys.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of road fatalities associated with drink driving, identifying those who were drunk drivers or riders, for each of the last 16 years. [3788]

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

  Estimate of deaths in drink related road accidents in Great Britain, 1979–94

  Year

  All deaths in drink-related road accidents

  Of which drivers or riders over limit

  1979

  1,640

  850

  1980

  1,450

  780

  1981

  1,420

  730

  1982

  1,550

  840

  1983

  1,110

  600

  1984

  1,170

  580

  1985

  1,040

  550

  1986

  990

  520

  1987

  900

  480

  1988

  790

  420

  1989

  810

  440

  1990

  760

  400

  1991

  660

  360

  1992

  660

  350

  1993

  540

  300

  1994 (provisional)

  510

  320

  A drink driver accident is defined as one where one or more of the drivers involved refused to give a specimen or failed either (i) a breath test by registering over 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 ml of breath, or (ii) a blood test by registering more than 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. The above figures are adjusted to allow for the fact that not all drink-drive accidents are detected.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of dead, drunk pedestrians in each of the last 16 years. [3787]
  274
  Mr. Norris
  There is no legal definition of a drunk pedestrian. However, the table shows estimates of the numbers of pedestrians killed in road accidents who were over the legal limit for driving.

  Estimated number of pedestrians over the legal drink-drive limit killed in road accidents: Great Britain: 1979–94

  Year

  Deaths

  1979

  570

  1980

  490

  1981

  360

  1982

  420

  1983

  450

  1984

  420

  1985

  360

  1986

  480

  1987

  490

  1988

  410

  1989

  440

  1990

  460

  1991

  360

  1992

  380

  1993

  330

  Coroners' data for 1994 are not yet available.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures will be taken by his Department to implement the recommendations contained in the second report of the Transport Select Committee for Session 1993–94, HC 173-I, on the privatisation and deregulation of the Department of Transport agency work, page 14, paragraph 46. [3922]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have made clear the importance they attach to ensuring the continued independence of the Transport Research Laboratory. In assessing bids for the whole of TRL, full consideration will be given to the proposals of prospective purchasers for ensuring that the laboratory's independence is safeguarded in the private sector.

  The Government intend to sell TRL only to reputable purchasers and will be seeking assurances from prospective purchasers about their ability to meet obligations to staff transferring to the new organisation.

  North West Regional Railways Ltd.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of the assets transferred to North West Regional Railways Ltd. [3949]

  Mr. Watts
  The total value of net assets transferred to North West Regional Railways Ltd. was £9,649,000.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost to North West Regional Railways Ltd. of leasing the railway stations at(a) Nelson and (b) Colne from Railtrack. [3950]

  Mr. Watts
  Individual station lease charges arc commercially confidential between Railtrack and the station operator concerned.

  Waste Pharmaceuticals
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will modify the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, Packaging and
  275
  Labelling) Regulations 1994 to allow the transport of waste pharmaceutical in containers of up to 60 litres in volume. [3547]

  Mr. Norris
  These regulations permit small receptacles of waste medicines to be exempted from certain transport provisions providing they are amalgamated in packagings of not more than 30kg in total. Any suggestion that such goods may be carried safely in larger receptacles should be made known to the Health and Safety Commission before 1 March 1996 in response to the current consultative document on the revision of the regulations.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years; [3834]

  (2) if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative (a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3808]

  Mr. Watts
  The amounts and timing of capital expenditure on PFI projects are subject to competition. Our current estimate for 1995–96 is around £330 million; estimates for the next three years are given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1996–97; no estimate of such capital expenditure has been made beyond the survey years.

  As to public sector contributions to PFI transport schemes, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to him on 28 June at column 262 and 7 November at column 265. Financial details of individual schemes, including the level of on-going revenue payments from the public sector to the private sector over the contract period, are commercially confidential. The Department applies a value-for-money test to all its procurement decisions, including procurement under the private finance initiative.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all NHS trusts(a) as of 30 November and (b) with effect from 1 April 1996. [4068]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) NHS Trusts in Wales as at 30 November 1995:

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  Swansea NHS Trust

  276

  Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  Derwen NHS Trust

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  Rhondda Health Care NHS Trust

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  Velindre NHS Trust

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  Glan-y-Môr NHS Trust (Shadow running until 1 April 1996)

  (b) Trusts from 1 April 1996
  The three remaining directly managed units in Wales, the Merthyr/Cynon health unit, the Rhymney Valley health unit and the Hensol health unit have submitted applications to acquire Trust status from April 1996. Three months public consultation on the applications commenced 25 September 1995. If these applications are successful, the Rhymney Valley Health Unit will be absorbed into the existing Glan Hafren NHS Trust, the Hensol Health Unit will merge with the existing Bridgend and District NHS Trust and the Merthyr/Cynon Health Unit will become the new North Glamorgan NHS Trust.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the consequences of rail privatisation in respect of Wales, and if he will make a statement. [2921]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Privatisation is designed to improve the quality of infrastructure and rail services in Wales.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the date of impoundment of the Cardiff bay barrage will be conditional upon the prior provision of adequate alternative bird reserves being completed and in place as covered in the letter of 2 November from the Welsh Office regional development division to Mr. D. Gould. [3724]

  Mr. Hague
  The date of impoundment of the waters of Cardiff bay is not conditional upon completion of bird reserve compensation measures. However, the intention is to complete the bird reserve before the start of impoundment.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of general practitioner fundholders in each county in Wales; how many applications to set up schemes are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [4009]
  277
  Mr. Richards
  There are 146 GP fundholding practices in Wales:

  Clwyd: 21

  Dyfed: 21

  Gwent: 21

  Gwynedd: 11

  Mid Glamorgan: 11

  Powys: 12

  South Glamorgan: 24

  West Glamorgan: 25.

  A further 66 practices are preparing to start fundholding from next April.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total administrative costs of running general practitioner fundholding schemes in each year since the inception of the schemes. [4008]

  Mr. Richards
  Reimbursement to general practitioner fundholders in respect of expenses covered by management allowances since the inception of the scheme is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  0.112

  1991–92

  0.518

  1992–93

  1.677

  1993–94

  3.055

  1994–95

  3.759

  Smoking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning smoking in public buildings in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [3856]

  Mr. Richards
  In December 1991, the Government published a non-statutory code of practice on smoking in public places, aimed at everyone with responsibility for monitoring the indoor environment of buildings frequented by the public. It suggests how exposure of the public to environmental tobacco smoke can be minimised, and provides guidance on suitable smoking policies for public places.

  The Government believe that the voluntary approach has a greater chance of success than legislation because no-smoking policies produced in response to public pressure are more likely to be accepted and observed.

  School Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the head teachers of John Summers high school, Elfed high school, Connah's Quay high school, CasteII Alun high school, St. David's high school, and Hawarden high school to discuss his allocation of moneys and other resources for the next financial year. [4020]

  Mr. Richards
  It is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources that are made available are allocated between services, including education, in the 278
  light of their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities. I suggest the schools pursue this matter with the relevant local authority.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all health authorities with effect from I April 1996. [4067]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) on 2 November 1994 Official Report, columns 1139–40. by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Wales.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3806]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 November 1995 at column 808.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3836]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4227]

  Mr. Hague
  I and my Ministers undertake regular ministerial visits. I have made 38 ministerial visits to Wales, including three trips abroad, in this period.

  The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has carried out 48 visits, including two abroad.

  The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has carried out 48 visits, including one abroad.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new initiatives his Department intends to take to encourage inward investment in towns and cities that are not assisted areas and do not benefit from EU objective 2 status. [2620]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government continue to support inward investment through my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, the national agencies and regional
  279
  development organisations. In recent years the number of regional development organisations in England has increased from five to eight with only the south east and eastern regions not currently covered, though IBB generated enquiries are dealt with by the Government offices. The IBB and RDO's work closely with English Partnerships whose role includes the development of vacant or derelict land in towns and cities to bring them back into productive use.

  Trade With India
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with India. [2621]

  Mr. Nelson
  Trade with India has increased by some 50 per cent. in both directions in the past three years. United Kingdom exports to India amounted to £1.5 billion in the 12 months to the end of September this year. UK imports from India in the same period amounted to £1.3 billion. The Indo-British Partnership—set up following the Prime Minister's visit to India in 1993—has contributed greatly to the strengthening of trade relations between the UK and India.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in manufacturing output in the past 12 months. [2622]

  Mr. Page
  Manufacturing output in the three months to September was 1.2 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Manufacturing output is forecast to grow by 2.5 per cent. next year.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of small businesses survive longer than three years. [2624]

  Mr. Page
  Official estimates of survival rates are available for businesses registering for VAT. These show that around 60 per cent. of businesses remain on the VAT register for at least three years.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small firms went out of business in the last quarter for which figures are available. [2628]

  Mr. Page
  There are no figures on the total numbers of small firms which go out of business each quarter. Figures are available on the number of firms which go out of businesses because of insolvency. In the third quarter of 1995 there were 3,919 company insolvencies and 6,736 individual insolvencies in England and Wales, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those measures that his Department has taken to assist small businesses since 1979. [2617]

  Mr. Page
  A complete outline of the range of initiatives introduced is published in the annual report "Small Firms in Britain". Copies of the 1995 report are in the Library of the House.

  Manweb
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had on behalf of consumers about the Scottish Power bid for Manweb from the North of Scotland Electricity Consumers Committee. [2625]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No such representations have been received on behalf of consumers.

  Support for Businesses
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department provides for businesses in the south-west. [2626]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department provides a wide range of services for businesses in the south west, including Business Links, a competitive advisory board and two regional supply offices. In addition, £14.4 million of regional selective assistance has been offered to companies in the south-west generating over £104 million of investment and 3,000 jobs.

  Export Competitiveness
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve the competitiveness of Britain's manufacturing exporters to world markets; and if he will make a statement. [2627]

  Mr. Nelson
  Through overseas trade services my Department offers exporters an enhanced package of support. The Government's commitment and proposals for improving the competitiveness of British industry are set out in the two White Papers on competitiveness, "Helping Business to Win" and "Forging Ahead" published in 1994 and 1995.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of payments position in the year ending October 1995(a) with members of the European Union, (b) with non European Union countries and (c) in total in the United Kingdom's trade with the rest of the world. [2629]

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the balance of payments, in total, is published quarterly by the Central Statistical Office. First Release, CSO(95)207, gave information up to the second quarter of 1995. Geographic breakdowns of the balance of payments are available annually; the latest results were published by the Central Statistical Office in October 1995 issue of "Economic Trends". Both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with both sides of the mining industry to discuss output and conditions in British coal mines. [2630]

  Mr. Page
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet representatives of the coal mining industry as necessary.

  Technology Foresight Programme
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implementation of the technology foresight programme. [2631]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Action to take forward the technology foresight programme is proceeding on a broad front. The foresight panels are pursuing vigorous programmes of dissemination. The chief scientific adviser has reconstituted the steering group, making strategic appointments which reflect the group's new focus on dissemination and implementation. The DTI is promoting foresight through Government regional offices and industry divisions. Several other Government departments are taking forward relevant foresight priorities. Numerous trade associations and professional bodies are taking forward foresight with their members. The foresight challenge competition has attracted an impressive response from industry and academia. The Government will publish a progress report shortly.

  Internet
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are being made to link the Internet to schools and libraries; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [2633]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is estimated that close to 2,000 schools are already linked to the Internet. My Department has supported an industry-led scheme not only to link 60 schools in a pilot scheme, but to focus and channel the vast amount of material available on the worldwide web so that it can help teachers deliver the national curriculum. The total cost of the "Schools On Line" pilot, which runs through to easter 1996 is around £1 million, of which 50 per cent. comes from the companies and 50 per cent. from DTI. There are also projects involving the Internet in the superhighways for education initiative announced on 13 November.

  The Director General of Telecommunications will be issuing a consultative paper in December on the future of the universal service obligation. One possibility is that the level of universal service for schools could be raised to cover a specified level of connection to the information superhighway, using a fund compatible with the operation of a competitive market.

  As for public libraries, this is an issue for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I understand it is being considered as part of the wider public library review about which there will shortly be a statement.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning his Department's commitment to the future large aircraft. [2634]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's position regarding the future large aircraft programmes remains as set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence on 16 December 1994,Official Report, column 823.
  282
  My Department is supporting the MoD's work to ensure the appropriate conditions are met to enable the United Kingdom to rejoin the programme. My Department is also seeking to help secure the best conditions for United Kingdom industry's participation through its own contacts with Governments and industry, at home and abroad.

  Textile Industry
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings he has recently held with representatives of the textile industry to discuss the future of the industry. [2635]

  Mr. Eggar
  In March this year I held just such a meeting with senior management representatives of a range of textile and clothing companies. We discussed competitiveness issues which influence the future prospects of these sectors and on which the Department is supporting the industries' own efforts to improve performance.

  The President of the Board of Trade, other DTI Ministers and I have also since had various other contacts throughout the year with organisations and companies operating in the textiles and clothing sectors which have provided additional opportunities to discuss such issues.

  Information, Broadcasting and Entertainment Technologies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the changes required in the regulatory regime to take account of the convergence of the information, broadcasting and entertainment technologies. [2636]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are committed to a policy of regulatory stability combined with sensible evolution. The Government are mindful that the growing convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting and information services might require a similar convergence in the regulatory structure. While, it would be premature at present to promote changes in regulatory structures, the Government continue to monitor developments closely, and to work with the multi-media industry advisory group and others in industry to agree the best way forward.

  Electronics Industry Prices
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to regulate prices in the electronics industry. [2637]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None.

  Science and Technology Expenditure
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the planned percentage change in Government expenditure in real terms on science and technology in the science and engineering base. and, net of launch aid, in the rest of the Department of Trade and Industry between 1993–94 and 1997–98. [2638]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The percentage change in Government expenditure in real terms on science and technology in the science and engineering base through
  283
  the science budget—that is excluding the contributions from the Education Departments, which are not yet known—between 1993–94 and 1997–98 is +1.3 per cent.

  The equivalent figure for the rest of the Department of Trade and Industry, net of launch aid, is not yet available as relevant expenditure plans for forward years have not yet been determined. Full details of the breakdown will appear in the next "Forward Look" of Government-funded science, engineering and technology due to be published in May 1996.

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new plans he has to apply research in nanotechnology to industrial uses. [2618]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are committed to innovation and the application of research across the full range of technologies, including nanotechnology. It is for the research councils, universities, academics and industry to take forward specific projects where appropriate making use of one of the many Government schemes encouraging research collaboration.

  South Western Electricity
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the National Consumer Council on behalf of consumers about the bid for South Western Electricity by Southern Company. [2623]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No such representations have been received on behalf of consumers.

  Electricity Industry
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the(a) disadvantages and (b) benefits of the restructuring of the electricity industry for the consumer. [2632]

  Mr. Eggar
  Electricity privatisation has provided the electricity companies with the right incentives to become vigorously competitive commercial enterprises, while independent regulation has brought an end to political meddling. The consumer is benefiting through: prices which—net of tax—are some 7 per cent. lower in real terms in both the domestic and industrial markets, with further reductions to come including a one-off rebate of £50 for domestic electricity customers of the regional electricity companies in England and Wales arising from the flotation of the national grid, and other reductions arising from tightened price controls and the forthcoming reduction in the fossil fuel levy: guaranteed standards of performance for tariff customers, with compensation if those standards are not met; new codes of practice on such matters as services for the elderly and disabled; and the opportunity to complain to an independent regulator—the Director General of Electricity Supply—and for those complaints to he investigated by the Office of Electricity Regulation. Many consumers have already been given the right to shop around for their electricity supplier, and in 1998 this right will be extended to all consumers including over 20 million in the domestic sector.

  Private Office Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 November, how many staff were employed in each Minister's private office; what were the salary costs of each office, in each year since 1979 at present prices; and if he will list the number of people employed, and their salary costs. in the press office in each year since 1979. [4060]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: Below are details of the number of staff employed in Minister's private offices—figures for the former Department of Energy are not available prior to I April 1985. Disaggregated salary costs are not available prior to 1994–95. The total salary costs in 1994–95 were £952,000.

  Staff in post 1 April 1980

  Department of Industry

  Secretary of State

  12

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  4

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Department of Trade

  Secretary of State

  11

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  4

  Staff in post 1 April 1981

  Department of Industry

  Secretary of State

  12

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  4

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Trade

  Secretary of State

  8

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  4

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  4

  Staff in post 1 April 1982

  Department of Industry

  Secretary of State

  12

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Trade

  Secretary of State

  8

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  4

  285

  Department of Industry

  Staff in Post 1 April 1983

  Secretary of State

  13

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Trade

  Secretary of State

  7

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  4

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Staff in post

  1 April 1984

  Secretary of State

  13

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  1 April 1985

  Secretary of State

  13

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Energy

  135

  1 April 1986

  Secretary of State

  15.5

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Energy

  141

  1 April 1987

  Secretary of State

  17.5

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  4

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Energy

  136.5

  1 April 1988

  Secretary of State

  12

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  11

  Minister of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Department of Energy

  138

  Secretary of State

  12

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  9

  Minister of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Department of Energy

  139.5

  286

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Staff in post

  1 April 1990

  Secretary of State

  13

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Department of Energy

  129

  1 April 1991

  Secretary of State

  14

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Department of Energy

  127

  1 April 1992

  Secretary of State

  13

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Department of Energy

  126

  1 April 1993

  President of the Board of Trade

  14

  Minister of State

  7

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  7

  1 April 1994

  President of the Board of Trade

  13

  Minister of State

  8

  Minister of State

  5

  Minister of State

  6

  Minister of State

  7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  7

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  5.5

  1 April 1995

  President of the Board of Trade

  l5

  Minister of State

  7

  Minister of State

  7

  Minister of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  6

  1Disaggregated information is not available for the Department of Energy which merged with the Department of Trade and Industry in April 1992.

  For information on the Department's press office I refer the hon. Member to a previous answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 17 September 1993, Official Report, column 988. The total number of staff employed on 1 April 1995 was 30.

  The estimated current annual salary cost of the press office is £777,000. Comparable figures for previous years could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Employee-owned Companies
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all employee-owned companies. [4029]
  287
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: I understand that there is no information available which would enable me to do so.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the percentage, and total turnover, of United Kingdom companies that are employee owned. [4030]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: I understand that there is no information available that would enable me to make such estimates.

  Investment
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what change was recorded in total investment between the second quarter of 1995 and the third quarter of 1995. [2602]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Whilst total investment fell by 2 per cent. over this period, it rose by 6.5 per cent. over the previous two years and by 31 per cent. since 1979.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3809]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although my Department has identified a number of proposals for the period 1996–97 to 1998–99, no scheme has yet been agreed.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3833]

  Table of Expenditure on Consumer Protection (at 1994–95 prices)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Outturn £000

  Outturn £

  Percentage change from 1993–94

  Allocation £000

  Percentage change from 1994–95

  Percentage change from 1993–94

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux1

  12,140

  11,916

  –1.8

  11,597

  –2.7

  –4.5

  Citizens Advice Scotland2

  1,483

  1,456

  –1.8

  1,417

  –2.7

  –4.5

  National Consumer Council3

  2,965

  2,473

  –16.6

  2,302

  –6.9

  –22.4

  Gas Consumers' Council4

  2,936

  2,774

  –6.5

  2,729

  –0.5

  –7.0

  Post Office Users' Councils and POACs5

  820

  714

  –12.9

  659

  –7.7

  –19.6

  288
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and the Budget Report 1996–97",which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995 and, for the current financial year, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor on 7 November 1995,official Report, column 705.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by eash Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4230]

  Mr. Lang
  My duties and those of my Ministers involve a large number of visits in the United Kingdom. Ministers in my Department have made 37 trips overseas in the period 6 July to 1 December 1995.

  Estimated Funding
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the estimated funding of the(a) National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, (b) National Consumer Council, (c) Gas Consumer Council, (d) Post Office Users National Council, (e) POAC, (f) Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, g DTI's consumer safety programme and (h) Central Rail Users Consultative Committee for each year from 1993–94 at 1995 prices, together with the percentage change (i) per annum and (ii) since 1993–94, including the 1996–97 figure following the November Budget statement. [4080]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Most of the information requested is as follows. Figures are shown for Citizens Advice Scotland as well as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The 1996–97 allocations have not yet been determined. Since April 1994 th Central Rail Users Consultative Committee has been the responsibility of the Office of the Rail Regulator.
  289

  Table of Expenditure on Consumer Protection (at 1994–95 prices)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

  164

  161

  –1.8

  165

  +2.5

  +0.6

  Consumer Safety

  1,074

  729

  –32.1

  824

  +11.5

  –23.3

  1 The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux received £336,000 in 1993–94, and £436,988 in 1994£95 in supplementary grant.

  2 Citizen Advice Scotland received £33,000 in 1993–94 and £79,736 in 1994–95 in supplementary grant.

  3The National Consumer Council received £228,000 in 1993–94, and £291,879 in 1994£95 in supplementary grant

  4 The cost of the Gas Consumers' Council is almost entirely recovered from British Gas

  5This covers expenditure by POUNC, POACs and the Post Office Users' Councils and Advisory Committees on Telecommunications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the Consumer Safety unit's report on carbon monoxide accidental fatal and non-fatal poisonings from domestic appliances in the United Kingdom and EU. [4081]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The two reports on accidental fatal and non-fatal poisonings from carbon monoxide due to faulty domestic heating appliances within the UK and EU will be published on 8 December, and copies of the reports will be placed in the Library of the House. Copies are available on request from the Department's Consumer safety unit.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which Labour Government since 1965 jobs in manufacturing fell at the rate of 700,000 a year, as indicated in his oral answer of 1 November to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-east (Mr. Purchase)Official Report column 297; and what information he has on the number of jobs in manufacturing in each year since 1965. [1617]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Manufacturing employment under the last labour Government fell by 680,000. That is a rate of 136,000 a year.

  Manufacturing output also declined by 0.5 per cent. a year for 1974 to 1979. Since 1979 it has increased by 0.7 per cent. a year.

  EU Retex Grant
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assistance he proposes for textile areas to promote diversification. [2614]

  Mr. Page
  The Government have secured 32 mecu of European Retex grant for a programme for textile areas including, for the first time, parts of London and the Scottish Borders. The aim of the programme is to promote the economic diversification of these areas. I expect that the European Commission will adopt the GB Retex programme later this month.

  Staff Training
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has undertaken on 290
  the effects on the performance of businesses of financial management training for managers. [3929]

  Mr. Page
  My Department recognises the importance of training for all staff, not just managers and its potential effect on competitiveness. A research report published by the DTI and the CBI—"Competitiveness—How the best UK companies are Winning" showed that winning companies train and develop all staff at all levels. It also showed that improved company performance is dependent on a range of factors, it can rarely be attributable to improvements in one particular facet of management.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to establish a central management information service for the business links programme. [3935]

  Mr. Page
  The Department has a contractual requirement that business links must provide through the training and enterprise councils, quarterly management information on business links activities.

  Business links partnerships are also required to establish as soon as reasonably practical, a database common to all the partners recording all business links related contacts with individual companies.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the core services of the business links network. [3938]

  Mr. Page
  A number of core services lie at the heart of business links. These include:

  an enquiry and information service;

  personal business advisers;

  help for start ups and micro business;

  diagnostic services;

  Business links also provide direct access to II categories of specialist advice and support including: marketing, finance, exports, management, training, technology and design.

  A copy of the "Business Links Service Guide" can be found in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what common database software is used by business links. [3936]
  291
  Mr. Page
  The Business Links IT strategy group defines the overall IT strategy for business links. As the business links are independent commercial companies it is the responsibility of the individual business link to specify what core software and systems they require to support their business. There is therefore no single common database software in use.

  Individual business links partnerships are however required to establish a clear commitment to record in a common database all contact information made by any of the partners where that contact relates to business links activity. This will provide the partners with a complete picture when dealing with customers of the business links.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specifications the IT unit has set out for business links systems. [3937]

  Mr. Page
  The business link IT strategy group—made up of the national partners, business links and DTI—determined the approach to be taken by business links in defining and developing their IT systems. They defined minimum mandatory standards in the areas of common core databases, client management systems core data, electronic mail, data protection and system security. These mandatory requirements and additional advisory material have been circulated to all business links partnerships as a series of documents known as OSSIT papers.

  The DTI IT unit does not however provide detailed specifications for business links IT systems. It is the responsibility of individual business links partnerships to define the technical specification of the solutions to their particular business requirements.

  Company Voluntary Arrangements
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many company voluntary arrangements there have been(a) in total and (b) for firms with fewer than 200 employees in each financial year since the Insolvency Act 1986. [3939]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The total number of company voluntary arrangements in each financial year since the Insolvency Act 1986 is shown in the table. Information by size of business is not available.

  Company Voluntary Arrangements in England and Wales Registered at Companies House

  (financial year data April to end March)

  Financial year

  Number of CVAs

  1987–88

  26

  1988–89

  52

  1989–90

  54

  1990–91

  75

  1991–92

  129

  1992–93

  67

  1993–94

  196

  1994–95

  281

  Source:

  Companies House.

  Business Starts and Closures
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) business start-ups there were and (b) small businesses closed in the last year for which figures are available in each parliamentary constituency. [3933]
  292
  Mr. Page
  There are no available figures on the numbers of business starts and closures in each parliamentary constituency. Estimates of numbers of VAT registrations and deregistrations by local authority district are published annually. A copy of the most recent figures "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analysis 1992–1993" is in the Library of the House.

  Business Link London
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the London business links to begin. [3934]

  Mr. Page
  Business link London opened for commercial trialling in July 1995. It provides a common enquiry and information services across London. Businesses can contact business link London by telephoning its freephone number 0800 997998.

  Plans for local access have been developed by eight local partnerships. Of these, six have been approved by my Department and their hub operations have opened for business. The remaining two are expected to follow early in 1996.

  British Coal
  Mr. Jack
  Thompson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the remaining senior executives of British Coal and the cost to public funds of their salaries. [4092]

  Mr. Page
  There are currently two full-time members of the British Coal Corporation, Mr Neil Clarke—Chairman and Mr Philip Hutchinson. Their salaries of £240,000 and £95,000 are paid by British Coal.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the current number of employees of British Coal; [4088]

  (2) what is the cost to the Exchequer of maintaining the remaining workforce and accommodation still required by British Coal for the six months following the establishment of the Coal Authority. [4089]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  EU Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 27 November. [4941]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 27 November.

  The Council reached political agreement on a decision on a series of guidelines for Trans-European telecommunications networks, and on a Decision for a 65 million ecu programme to stimulate development of the European multi-media content industry—INFO 2000 programme—though in both cases adoption of a common position awaits the European Parliament's opinion. The council also adopted a number of items without discussion, and details of these are listed in the Council press release which is deposited in the Library of the

  293
  House. These included the final adoption of the resubmitted directive applying open network provision to voice telephony.

  The presidency gave a progress report on discussion of a draft directive on interconnection in telecommunications. A policy debate followed on two draft Commission directives on mobile and personal communications, and full competition in telecommunications markets. The Council agreed unanimous conclusions calling on the Commission to take account of the positions expressed by the Council and member states before adopting the directives.

  There was also a policy debate on a draft directive on the development of Community postal services, and on a draft Commission notice on the application of the treaty competition rules to the postal sector. The Council agreed unanimous conclusions on the draft Notice calling on the Commission to delay its publication until agreement had been reached on the directive, but to publish by the end of 1996.

  The Commission made brief presentations on: two draft directives on licensing of telecommunications services, and to adapt the open network provision directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC to a competitive environment; two draft decisions on satellite personal communications, and on a programme for the promotion of multi-lingualism in the information society, and on a Communication on directories in a competitive environment. The Commission also reported on the progress of multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation on basic telecommunications.

  No votes were taken on the substantive items in the agenda of the Council.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecoms Council, held on 27 November giving details of all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1971]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council. Details of votes on all points are recorded in the Council press release referred to in my reply.

  World Trade Estimate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of Britain's share of(a) world trade in manufactured goods and (b) world trade in services for each year since 1975. [4402]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  UK percentage share of world exports of manufactured goods and services

  Percentage value share of services1

  Percentage value share of manufactures2

  Percentage volume share of manufactures2

  1975

  9.9

  7.1

  8.3

  1976

  9.1

  6.6

  8.0

  1977

  8.8

  6.9

  8.0

  294

  UK percentage share of world exports of manufactured goods and services

  Percentage value share of services1

  percentage value share of manufactures2

  Percentage volume share of manufactures2

  1978

  8.6

  6.7

  7.5

  1979

  9.0

  6.7

  6.9

  1980

  8.8

  7.0

  6.7

  1981

  8.2

  6.2

  6.1

  1982

  7.6

  6.1

  6.2

  1983

  7.4

  5.6

  5.9

  1984

  7.3

  5.3

  5.8

  1985

  7.7

  5.5

  5.9

  1986

  7.7

  5.4

  5.9

  1987

  7.7

  5.6

  6.0

  1988

  7.4

  5.7

  5.8

  1989

  6.8

  5.6

  5.8

  1990

  6.6

  5.9

  6.0

  1991

  6.0

  5.8

  5.8

  1992

  5.7

  5.6

  5.7

  1993

  5.4

  5.3

  5.5

  1994

  n/a

  5.4

  5.5

  Note:

  Over the time period 1975–94 volume shares will better reflect changes in composition and relative prices. But volume share of world trade in services is not readily available.

  Sources:

  1Derived from data published in IMF "Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook", Part 2, various editions.

  2Derived from data published in the OECD "Economic Outlook".

SCOTLAND

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many informal approaches his Department has received from companies seeking payments under regional selective assistance in each financial year since 1979–80. [1717]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 November 1995): Statistical records of informal approaches to the Department are not kept.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what tightening of the procedures in relation to the payment of regional selective assistance his Department made during the last 18 months; [1719]

  (2) what section within his Department has responsibility for monitoring companies who have been awarded regional selective assistance; and what procedures are used by this section to monitor these projects. [1724]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: Responsibility for the monitoring of projects which have been awarded regional selective assistance lies with the investment assistance division of the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. When a company is made an offer of RSA, it is issued with an offer letter which sets out the conditions against which RSA will, assuming the offer is accepted, be payable. Throughout the term of each offer of assistance, and prior to any payment of grant, company progress reports are obtained which have been certified by independent accountants. These allow the division to check that the conditions upon which payment of grant depends have been met. These progress reports are supplemented, as necessary, by the division's own monitoring visits and investigations. The

  295
  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office, has within the last 18 months reviewed its monitoring procedures to ensure that straightforward cases are not handled with unnecessary complexity while higher risk cases are accorded appropriately full attention.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department offered to companies in regional selective assistance for each financial year since 1979–80; and what proportion of these amounts were fully paid by his Department. [1734]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 November 19951: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year of acceptance

  Value of offers accepted(£ million)

  Of which total accepted (£ million)

  Proportion paid to date (percentage)

  1979–80

  32.2

  27.1

  84

  1980–81

  31.0

  23.0

  74

  1981–82

  29.9

  22.5

  75

  1982–83

  50.4

  39.2

  78

  1983–84

  38.3

  34.1

  89

  1984–85

  70.7

  55.2

  78

  1985–86

  58.6

  44.6

  76

  1986–87

  34.6

  26.9

  78

  1987–88

  56.2

  37.6

  67

  1988–89

  49.8

  34.7

  70

  1989–90

  76.3

  50.2

  66

  1990–91

  173.5

  99.5

  57

  1991–92

  52.3

  36.2

  69

  1992–93

  72.3

  43.0

  59

  1993–94

  126.8

  51.6

  41

  1994–95

  113.0

  22.7

  20

  1. This table refers to the year an offer was accepted. Payments in respect of an offer will normally be spread over several years.

  2. For the most recent years, some offers are still live and further payments may be made in respect of these.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to disclose fully the amounts of money actually received by companies from his Department in regional selective assistance. [1720]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 November 19951: The amount of an offer made to a company, where the offer is over £75,000, is published in "Labour Market Trends" following the first grant payment. It is not intended to depart from this practice.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it is policy to instruct his Department to make a new appraisal of the effectiveness of the regional selective assistance scheme; [1721]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of awards made by his Department under the regional selective assistance scheme; [1722]

  (3) what specific measures and sources of funding are available to his Department to support economic development in Scotland. [1723]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: The Government's chief role in supporting economic development is to promote a stable low-inflation economic environment. Within that context, the Scottish Office is responsible for a number of measures which support economic development. For example, it sponsors and funds Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands
  296
  Enterprise; it encourages inward investment and export promotion through its two joint bureaux with Scottish Enterprise, Locate in Scotland and Scottish Trade International; and it offers grant assistance to encourage industrial investment in the assisted areas.

  Regional selective assistance is the principal such grant assistance scheme. The scheme operates throughout Great Britain, under the direction of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. Periodic evaluations are made by the independent consultants of the scheme's effectiveness throughout Great Britain. Because of the nature of the RSA scheme there is frequently a period of some three to five years between an application for grant being made and the assisted project being completed, therefore such evaluations have to be undertaken some years in arrears. The most recent evaluation was "Regional Selective Assistance 1985–1988: An Evaluation by PA Cambridge Economic Consultants" published by HMSO in July 1993. This evaluation concluded that RSA was an effective means of raising the level of employment in the assisted areas of Great Britain and that the scheme during the period 1985–88 had resulted in the creation of between 700,000 and 1 million additional job years at a net cost to the Exchequer of between £500 to £700 per job at 1990 prices. It also concluded that the operation of RSA during the period 1980–88 had reduced the assisted areas unemployment rate by about one percentage point compared with what would otherwise have been the case. A further evaluation will be carried out in due course.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present prison population in Scotland and in each of the past five years. [2539]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The subject of this question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E.W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Norman Hogg, dated 6 December 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question relating to the present prison population in Scotland and in each of the past five years.On Friday 17 November 1995 the prison population was 5,717.The table below shows the average daily prison population for each of the past five years.Average daily population for 1990–94

  1990: 4,724

  1991: 4,839

  1992: 5,257

  1993: 5,637

  1994: 5,585.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what record he keeps of the number and dates of meetings he has with the heads of agencies which report to him. [3084]
  297
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Internal records are maintained for all formal meetings between my right hon. Friend and the heads of his agencies.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many statutory instruments his Department sponsored in the last Session of Parliament; and how many of these(a) constituted a new rule or regulation, (b) were introduced to implement European Community directives and (c) amplify the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive. [2462]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: In the last Session of Parliament the Scottish Office sponsored 193 statutory instruments; information on how many of these constituted a new rule or regulation could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; five of the 193 were introduced to implement European Directives; none of these amplifies the minimum standards set out in an original European directive.

  Table I: River Purification Boards (RPBs)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Income1

  fees

  361,597

  481,558

  not yet available

  charges

  2,932,512

  3,107,622

  not yet available

  fines1

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Staff employed

  all staff2.3

  368.7

  389.7

  not yet available

  Scottish office contribution to running costs

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1Information is a summary covering all 7 of the mainland RPBs and is taken from annual reports. Audited accounts not yet available for 1994–95.

  2RPBs do not levy or collect income from fines.

  3Staff numbers are maintained on the basis of full-time equivalents.

  Table 2: Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate (HMIPI)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Income

  fees and charges1

  764,972

  1,085,853

  685,447

  fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Staff employed

  full time

  31

  34

  34

  part time

  1

  3

  3

  Scottish Office contribution to running costs

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  1HMIPI do not separately identify fees and charges nor do they levy or collect income from fines.

  Table 3: Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Income

  fees

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  charges

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Staff employed

  full time

  260

  260

  263

  part time

  10

  12

  12

  Scottish Office contribution to running costs

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  SFPA do not receive income from fees, charges or fines.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list annual income from(a) fees, (b) charges and (c) fines; what was the total number of staff employed (i) part-time and (ii) full time; and what contribution his Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years in respect of (1) the river
  purification boards, (2) Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate, (3) the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and (4) the Meat and Livestock Commission for Scotland. [2747]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available to me is set out in the tables. The level of detail requested is, for some of the bodies, greater than that routinely held and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  The information given for the Meat and Livestock Commission relates to the Great Britain-wide non-departmental public body for which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the sponsor Department. There is no separate commission for Scotland.
  299

  Table 4: Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC)

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Income

  fees

  9,977,000

  9,278,000

  8,444,000

  charges

  28,663,000

  29,646,000

  32,256,000

  fines

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Staff employed

  all staff

  737

  637

  541

  Scottish Office contribution to running costs

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1. Information from annual reports which are prepared on the basis of a calendar year.

  2. MLC do not receive income from fees, charges or fines.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many playing fields are currently under threat of development; [3847]

  (2) how many playing fields have been sold off since 1981; [3848]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the value of playing fields that have been sold off since 1981; [3849]

  (4) what estimates he has made of the area of playing fields that have been sold off since 1981; [3850]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the redevelopment or disposal of playing fields in Scotland is not held centrally. I have however asked the chairman of the Scottish Sports Council to write to the hon. Gentleman with any information held by the council on these matters. I have asked to see a copy of the letter.

  Highland Council for Decentralisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds were given to the Highland Council for decentralisation; how these funds were bid for; if other new unitary councils were invited to bid for funds for decentralisation; and if he will make a statement. [3493]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The shadow Highland council has been given a capital allocation of £275,000 towards its accommodation needs arising from local government reorganisation. These resources are intended to enable the council to provide public access facilities in remote communities and will also assist the council to maximise the effective use of existing property.

  All shadow unitary authorities were invited to submit bids in respect of their accommodation needs arising from reorganisation and capital allocations of around £9 million have now been given to 21 shadow authorities and the Strathclyde police board. No restrictions were placed on the scope of bids and decisions on allocations were taken on the basis of the relative needs of individual councils, within the limits of the available resources.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is making for the collection of revenue for the water and sewerage authorities in Scotland; what payment is to be made to any councils involved in collection; who will be 300
  responsible for pursuing those in arrears with payment; and if he will make a statement. [3494]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The collection of non-domestic and metered charges is a matter for the new water and sewerage authorities. With regard to domestic unmeasured water and sewerage charges, my right hon. Friend will require the unitary councils to bill and collect these on behalf of the new water and sewerage authorities in 1996–97. An order will be made under section 79 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 requiring this work to be done.

  We are presently consulting local authorities, new water authorities and the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council among others on the practical arrangements. These include proposals for calculating the amount the local authorities will be required to hand over to the new water and sewerage authorities and for payment to the local authorities for the work they will do. The consultation period expires on 31 December. I have arranged for copies of the consultation document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  When local authorities are required to do this billing and collection work, the recovery of charges is a matter for them. Summary warrant powers will be available to them.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3831]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3811]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The following table lists completed PFI projects and agreed projects within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and their estimated capital value. The health sector projects are the responsibility of the relevant health boards and trusts and figures are not available centrally for estimated revenue costs or to allow a comparison between estimated PFI and public sector capital costs.
  301
  Scottish Office PFI projects completed or agreed (ie contracts let).

  Project

  Estimated capital value (£ million)

  A—Completed

  Lanarkshire Health Board: 60 elderly care beds

  1.5

  Lanarkshire Health Board (Bellshill): care beds

  2.8

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals Trust: SMAC analyser equipment

  0.3

  Grampian Health Board (Spynie Hospital, Elgin): 25 beds

  1.1

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust (Aberdeen City Hospital):60 beds

  n/a

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust beds for mentally ill 3–18 beds

  n/a

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Darnley) 120 care beds

  3.5

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Ruchill): 120 beds

  3.8

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Rutherglen): 180 beds

  5.0

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Shettleston): 120 beds

  3.3

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust:

  CT and MRI scanners

  2.2

  Skye Bridge crossing

  23.6

  B—Agreed (i.e contracts let)

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board: care beds

  3.8

  Lothian and Forth Valley Trusts: clinical waste disposal

  5.0

  Lothian HB: Western General Hospital Molecular Medicines Centre

  5.3

  Lothain Health Board: clinical genetic services

  0.8

  Northern Trusts: clinical waste disposal

  5.0

  NHS Trust Executives
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what travel allowances have been paid to senior executives of(a) each NHS trust in Scotland; and (b) each health board in Scotland; in the last four financial years. [4447]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued to NHS trusts or health boards relating to the travel allowances which should be available to the senior executives of these bodies. [4446]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Travel allowance for senior executives of an NHS trust is a matter for the trust itself. For senior executives on national terms and conditions, travel allowance provisions of the "General Whitley Council Handbook" will apply.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise expect to introduce new disclosure arrangements for themselves and their subsidiary local enterprise companies relating to assistance offered to companies by the local enterprise companies; [4450]
  302
  (2) how much in total the directors of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and each local enterprise company have declared in beneficial interests for each financial year since their establishment; and what percentage this represented of the operational expenditure of each of the local enterprise company. [4449]

  Mr. Kynoch
  These are operational matters for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of both bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has issued to the water authorities in Scotland on the subject of conflicts of interest between their business and personal intersrts and their membershiip of the water authorities. [4454]

  Mr.Kynoch
  The instrument of appointment signed by members required them to notify the Secretary of State of interests which might be prejudicial to their appoinment. Members are also required by the provisions of schedule 7 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 to disclose at a meeting of the affect consideration of matters being dealt with by the authority to which they have been appointed.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tendering procedure was used by his Department in awarding the contract for drafting the property transfer for the new water authorities in Scotland. [4453]

  Mr. Kynoch
  To assist outgoing councils and the Central Scotland Water Development Board in the drafting of the transfer schemes required Board in the drafting of the transfer schemes required under section 91 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, the Scottish office let two contracts: the first was to liaise with councils and the board on the preparation of sehemes and to evaluate the content of submitted schemes.

  Both contracts were let by competitive tender. For the first, six firms were invited to tender from which the Babtie Group was chosen. For the second contract expressions of interest, were sought by advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Thereafter, 13 firms were invited to tender and the contract was awarded to the Babtie Group.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is proposing in respect of payments of water rates by the new unitary councils to the new water authorities in Scotland; what procedures he will put in place to resolve disputes between the water authorities and the unitary councils over the levels of payments; and what plan he has to allow unitary councils to be billed by the water authorities in advance for water rates. [4443]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend will require the unitary councils to bill and collect unmeasured domestic water and sewerage charges on behalf of the new water and sewerage authorities in 1996–97. A copy of the consultation paper setting out our proposals is available in the Library of the House. The consultation period ends
  303
  on 31 December. The billing and collection of other water and sewerage charges is a matter for the new water and sewerage authorities.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what personal interests have been declared by members of the new water authorities; and what procedures there are for public scrutiny of these interests. [4455]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No member of a water authority has declared any interest within the terms of schedule 7 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. Each of the new water authorities is presently considering the issue of public scrutiny of any declarations of interests. The West of Scotland Water Authority has agreed interim standing orders which provide for the public inspection for a register of members' interests.

  Emergency Response Trains
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations his Department has made to Railtrack in respect of its recent decision on the deployment of emergency response trains on the rail network; and if his Department was consulted on this matter. [4441]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The deployment of emergency units is entirely a matter for Railtrack and there is no requirement to consult the Scottish Office.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Funding
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give the amount in cash terms by which(a) the funding from her Department changed per pupil in Derbyshire between 1994–95 and 1995–96 and (b) the funding allocated by Derbyshire county council to each school changed, per pupil, over the same period. [2216]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The standard spending assessment for Derbyshire increased by £11 or 0.6 per cent., per primary pupil and decreased by £101 or 4.2 per cent., per secondary pupil between 1994–95 and 1995–96. In percentage terms, this is broadly in line with national figures.

  A table will be placed in the House of Commons Library showing the change over the same period in funding per pupil allocated by Derbyshire county council to each school maintained by the local education authority.

  School Meals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost of school meals in each local education authority in England and Wales. [3707]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on the cost of school meals in schools in England has not been collected centrally since 1993.

  The cost of school meals in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  304
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average cost of school meals in England has been for each year since 1978. [3706]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on local authorities' charging arrangements, which was collected centrally between January 1990 and 1993, is shown in the table:

  School meals charging arrangements1 in maintained schools in England 1990–1993

  Position as at January each year

  Pence per day Primary

  Pence per day secondary

  Year

  Fixed2 charge

  Authorised3 Spend

  Fixed2charge

  Authorised3 Spend

  1990

  62

  63

  65

  74

  1991

  73

  75

  78

  82

  1992

  83

  88

  89

  94

  1993

  92

  92

  96

  103

  11993 data collected from maintained schools. Data for earlier years collected from local education authorities.

  2The fixed charge is the charge for a standard meal in schools operating dining centres.

  3The authorised spend is the amount allowed for each pupil receiving a free meal in schools operating a cash cafeteria service.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools now have access to a qualified computer technician. [3846]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Technical support is provided by a range of public and commercial contractors and is a matter for individual schools. Surveys recently carried out do not differentiate between general and computer technicians.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in United Kingdom schools have knowledge of, and the ability to use, computers. [3915]

  Mr. Squire
  The competencies set out in departmental circulars 9/92 and 14/93 require all newly qualified teachers to be able to make constructive use of information technology. The Teacher Training Agency is targeting the use of IT to improve pupils' achievements as a national priority area for the continuing professional development of teachers.

  Details of staff trained in the use of information technology in schools in England are contained within the Department's statistical bulletin 3/95, reporting on a survey in March 1994. This indicates that seven in 10 staff in primary schools had undertaken one or more short in-service training courses in the use of IT. In secondary schools, 32 per cent. of teachers had received initial awareness training in the use of IT; 24 per cent. had attended one additional short in-service course; a further 27 per cent. of teachers had attended more than one additional short in-service course.

  Information about schools in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State concerned.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action the Government plan to take to remove obstacles to people who wish to study or train while remaining unemployed and claiming benefit. [4093]

  Mr. Paice
  The rules for unemployed people who wish to study or train while claiming benefits will be updated when Jobseeker's allowance is introduced on 7 October 1996.

  Certain unemployed people, in particular those who have been unemployed for six months or more, will continue to be eligible to train full or part-time under training for work. Participants on TFW receive an allowance instead of benefit, and so are not subject to the benefit tests of availability or actively seeking employment.

  As now, full-time students will not generally be able to claim JSA. People receiving JSA will be able to study part-time, as long as they meet the entitlement conditions, which include being available for and actively seeking employment. This carries existing arrangements. Courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council are not defined as full or part-time. For JSA purposes, therefore, courses funded in whole or in part by the FEFC will be considered to be part-time if they are of no more than 16 guided learning hours per week. There will be no change in higher education, where the distinction between full and part-time remains, or in other sectors.

  Unemployed people claiming JSA will be able to undertake full-time, employment-related courses for up to two weeks a year with the prior agreement of the Employment Service. They will not have to be available for or actively seeking employment while on the course.

  Training for Work England and Wales and Regions 1995 up to August

  Special Needs Groups by Region1

  Starts2 during January—March 1995

  Starts2 during April—June 1995

  People with disabilities

  Literacy/numeracy problems

  English for speakers of languages

  People with disabilities

  Literacy/numeracy problems

  English for speaker of other languages

  South East

  15

  4

  2

  15

  7

  1

  London

  10

  5

  4

  10

  10

  5

  Eastern England

  13

  4

  1

  15

  4

  1

  South West

  17

  5

  1

  17

  7

  2

  West Midlands

  18

  4

  1

  15

  4

  1

  East Midlands

  18

  5

  1

  16

  4

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  18

  8

  2

  15

  8

  2

  Greater Manchester1

  17

  9

  4

  16

  8

  3

  North West1

  14

  7

  2

  13

  7

  1

  North East

  17

  7

  1

  13

  7

  1

  Wales

  14

  5

  1

  14

  4

  1

  England and Wales

  16

  6

  2

  15

  7

  2

  Notes:

  1The regional breakdown here differs from the standard Government Office regions, in that the TECs covered by the new North West and Merseyside regions are shown under the previous North West and Greater Manchester regional definitions. The database does not cover Scotland.

  2The database gives information on those starting in a given time period. In order for there to be sufficient records to give reliable estimates. the figures are given for quarters rather than individual months. April—June 1995 is the latest available quarter.

  Source:

  TFW national starts database.
  306
  These new rules on part-time study will provide more clarity and are designed to allow the same number of people to study part-time while unemployed and receiving benefit as do so under the current rules.

  Assisted Places
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 21 November 1995,Official Report, column 101, if she will make a statement on the procedures in place to cross-check the income of parents seeking help under the assisted place scheme with other Government-held records. [4196]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Schools participating in the assisted places scheme administer means testing within the regulations and guidance provided by the Department. Parents are required to supply to the schools full corroborative documentary evidence of their income, for example, by means of a P60 or schedule D tax assessment. Schools are expected to satisfy themselves that it is complete and accurate, and may ask parents to obtain written confirmation from the Inland Revenue or other source where necessary. The Department conducts regular audit surveys of random samples of parental income assessments carried out by participating schools to check compliance with the regulations and guidance.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of training for work programme participants in each month of 1995(a) in total and (b) by standard region; and what was the number of training for work programme participants regarded as special needs trainees in the same periods and regions. [4317]

  Mr. Paice
  August 1995 is the latest month for which figures are available. It is only possible to estimate the percentage of starts by special needs trainees, not the actual numbers. The information available is given in tables 1 and 2:
  307

  Training for Work Great Britain and regions 1995 up to August

  Number of participants in each period by region

  Number in training as at1

  1 January

  30/27 January

  26/24 February

  26/31 March

  23/28 April

  21/26 May

  18/30 June

  16/28 July

  13/25 August

  South-east

  7,600

  8,400

  8,500

  7,300

  5,900

  5,600

  5,300

  4,600

  4,000

  London

  16,000

  16,600

  16,800

  11,700

  10,100

  10,900

  10,700

  10,200

  9,500

  Eastern England

  7,000

  7,400

  7,600

  6,700

  6,000

  6,000

  5,500

  4,800

  4,600

  South-west

  8,600

  8,700

  8,300

  7,400

  6,500

  6,500

  6,400

  5,900

  5,500

  West Midlands

  10,900

  11,700

  11,700

  10,400

  8,100

  7,800

  7,400

  6,800

  6,400

  East Midlands

  8,100

  8,300

  8,400

  8,000

  6,400

  5,900

  5,700

  5,500

  5,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14,000

  14,200

  14,700

  13,200

  10,000

  9,600

  9,000

  7,900

  7,500

  Merseyside

  6,700

  7,200

  8,000

  8,500

  6,300

  5,800

  5,600

  5,300

  5,500

  North-west

  10,700

  11,000

  11,600

  10,500

  9,000

  8,300

  7,800

  7,500

  7,400

  North-east

  10,800

  11,200

  11,400

  10,500

  8,600

  8,300

  8,000

  7,600

  7,600

  England

  99,800

  105,100

  106,700

  94,400

  77,000

  74,600

  71,400

  66,200

  63,200

  Wales

  9,500

  10,100

  9,800

  8,600

  6,700

  6,300

  6,100

  5,100

  4,800

  Scotland2

  n/a

  14,400

  14,600

  14,400

  14,100

  13,800

  13,600

  13,100

  12,800

  Great Britain

  n/a

  129,600

  131,000

  117,300

  97,800

  94,700

  91,200

  84,400

  80,700

  Notes:

  1 The first date shown is for England and Wales, the second is for Scotland.

  2 In Scotland information is collected over 12 periods not 13 as in England and Wales.

  Source:

  TEC management information returns, the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what surplus or loss each training and enterprise council made in 1994–95 on their turnover. [3702]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 15 June 1995,Official Report, column 655. This shows the surpluses or losses for each of the training and enterprise councils in England. The information has been extracted from TECs' statutory accounts for 1993–94. Information for 1994–95 will be available at 31 January 1996 by which date all TECs are required to have lodged their accounts.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount available in 1995–96 to TECs by way of performance-related funding; and what was the performance-related funding target for small firm training loans to have been awarded in respect of each TEC. [3704]

  Mr. Paice
  The total amount of funding for the 1995–96 performance-related funding competition for TECs has yet to be determined, but is customarily 2 per cent. of eligible programme budgets for the following year. The 1994–95 competition resulted in awards totalling nearly £20 million. Targets for small firms training loans of some 1,300 were planned as a component of the 1995–96 competition, but following representation from the TEC national council that the targets were unrealistic I have agreed to withdraw this element of the competition, if all TECs in a region agree.

  Skills League Table
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the United Kingdom's current position in the World Economic Forum's skills league table. [3703]
  308
  Mr. Forth
  Out of the 48 countries covered in the World Economic Forum's "World Competitiveness Report, 1995", the UK was ranked 20th in respect of the availability of competent senior managers and skilled labour. However, the forum's findings are based on limited statistical evidence and put Japan well below the Philippines.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employers, and of what size, currently hold investor in people status; and what these constitute as a percentage of all employers of that size(a) nationally and (b) by region. [4237]

  Mr. Paice
  At 8 October 1995, 2,631 employers in the United Kingdom were recognised as investors in people. Of these, 743 were companies with over 200 employees; 1,888 with under 200 employees.

  The percentage of organisations in England recognised as investors in people is:

  (a) 8.5 per cent. of those with over 200 employees.

  (b) 0.15 per cent. of those with under 200 employees.

  Training and enterprise councils have counted the number of companies employing over 200 who are likely to be eligible for investors in people. Figures for companies employing under 200 are currently based on the latest published census of employment figures which counts numbers of workplaces.

  The regional breakdown for England, as a percentage of those organisations in each region with over 200 employees and under 200 employees respectively, is as follows:

  Percentage

  Over 200 employees

  Under 200 employees

  Eastern

  7

  .05

  East Midlands

  9

  .15

  London

  3

  .05

  309

  Percentage

  Over 200 employees

  Under 200 employees

  Merseyside

  11

  .19

  North West

  9

  .17

  Northern

  9

  .16

  South East

  10

  .09

  West Midlands

  10

  .15

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  9

  .18

  South West

  17

  no baselines available

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3819]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Employment Service has procured a personnel system under the private finance initiative. There are no associated capital costs to public funds. The revenue cost to the Employment Service is £3.2 million over the seven-year life of the contract.

  The Employment Service could not have obtained the expertise within the public sector so no estimate has been made.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3824]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for the latest year available for(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) regionally of those young people who started youth training in (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995 what percentage completed the course (1) without gaining a qualification and (2) subsequently registered unemployed. [4292]

  Mr. Paice
  The available information is given in the table. The table covers those who completed their training in 1994, as many of those young people who started youth training in 1994 and 1995 have yet to complete their course.

  Youth training—England and Wales and regions 1994 Leavers who completed their agreed course of training

  Per cent.

  Not gaining a qualification or credit towards one

  Unemployed

  Northern

  21

  25

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  16

  North-west

  28

  15

  Greater Manchester

  25

  12

  West Midlands

  24

  14

  East Midlands

  28

  14

  South-west

  24

  11

  310

  Youth training—England and Wales and regions 1994 Leavers who completed their agreed course of training

  Per cent.

  Not gaining a qualification or credit towards one

  Unemployed

  South-east

  28

  12

  Eastern

  23

  12

  London

  29

  19

  England

  25

  15

  Wales

  32

  18

  England and Wales

  26

  15

  Note:

  The proportion of leavers who sign on as unemployed is not available from the follow-up survey; the table reports the proportion of leavers who declared themselves to be unemployed six months after leaving the programme.

  Source:

  YT National Follow-up Survey.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in her Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4224]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is in the table:

  Minister

  Total number of visits

  Visits abroad

  Percentage visits abroad

  Secretary of State

  18

  0

  0

  Mr. Forth

  17

  2

  12

  Lord Henley

  20

  1

  5

  Mr. Paice

  19

  3

  16

  Mr. Squire

  33

  1

  3

  Mrs. Gillan

  18

  3

  17

NORTHERN IRELAND

  "Make It Back Home"
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Make It Back Home project was launched by the Local Enterprise Development Unit; in what countries it was advertised; how many applications have been made to date from each such country; and how many persons have been assisted and at what total and average cost(a) to date and (b) to the end of the period in which grant assistance will he paid to those currently accepted under the scheme. [3456]

  Mr. Ancram
  LEDU launched its first "Make It Back Home" campaign in 1987 under the name "Success in the West" and advertising subsequently took place in the following countries:

  United States of America

  United Kingdom

  Canada

  Hong Kong

  New Zealand

  Australia.

  311
  Applications received so far are as follows:

  Country

  Number of applications received

  United Kingdom

  89

  United States of America

  17

  Australia

  2

  Canada

  6

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  Rupublic of Ireland

  3

  Total

  118

  A total of 90 companies have been assisted to date with a total funding commitment of £938,544.

  The total cost of assistance actually paid to date is £699,358 with an average cost per project of £7,770.

  The average cost, once all moneys committed to these 90 companies have been paid will be £10,428 per project.

  Job Creation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost per job created in(a) manufacturing industry, (b) the service industry and

  IDS job promotions 1990–91 to 29 November 1995

  District council area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 to 29 November 1995

  Antrim

  65

  —

  660

  250

  579

  —

  Ards

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  7

  —

  120

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  977

  390

  150

  420

  67

  190

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  255

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  35

  —

  509

  —

  Derry

  —

  28

  934

  46

  481

  500

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  257

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  63

  12

  —

  —

  —

  118

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  314

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  —

  212

  —

  1,358

  Magherafelt

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  155

  —

  —

  129

  18

  —

  Newtownabbey

  5

  —

  —

  681

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,294

  430

  1,945

  2,309

  1,969

  2,166

  University of Ulster Campus
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay the delay in the publication of the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers report into the proposed university of Ulster campus at Springvale; when it will be published;
  312
  (c) retailing in the last five years in Northern Ireland the current year to date; and what has been the cost to public funds in each category. [3458]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on costs per job is not currently available in the form requested. The Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit are currently each carrying out work to establish meaningful measurements in this difficult area.

  The hon. Gentleman may, however, find useful the related information on employment and financial assistance contained in the latest IDB and LEDU annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been created by inward investment in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year to the latest available date in(a) manufacturing industry, (b) the service industry and (c) retailing in each council area in Northern Ireland. [3463]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on job creation is not available in the form requested. The table gives details of all inward investment job promotions in each council area in Northern Ireland for the years 1990–91 to 1994‴95 and for those agreed and announced in the current year up to 29 November.

  what was its cost; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy. [3182]

  Mr. Moss
  The factors associated with the delay in the publication of the PIEDA report include the complexity of the assignment and the need for extended consultation with Government officials and education interests. The final report is expected by the end of 1995 and a decision
  313
  about publication will then be taken. The cost of the economic appraisal to date is £82,263. No assessment of the adequacy of the assignment can be made until the final report has been received and considered.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) elected representatives and (b) community activists whom PIEDA consultants consulted in drawing up their report into the proposed university of Ulster campus. [3183]

  Mr. Moss
  PIEDA consulted with three elected representatives from Belfast city council. They did not though consult any community groups as part of their assignment.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the firms from outside Northern Ireland which have made investments in Northern Ireland in(a) manufacturing industry (b) service industry and (c) for other purposes indicating where each firm's operations are located in Northern Ireland, the total investment made in respect of each firm and the amount of grant given from public funds to each firm, the percentage of the total investment this represents or as much of such information as is readily available to him for each of the last two years and the 'current year to the latest available date. [3469]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on investments is not available in the form requested. Details are available for externally-owned companies which have accepted offers of selective financial assistance from the Industrial Development Board for manufacturing and tradeable services projects. They are set out in the tables.

  1993–94—Accepted Offers—externally owned companies

  Company name

  IDB asistance offered £'000s

  Total investment £'000s

  Per cent. contribution

  Rothmans Int Plc

  200

  995

  20

  Braidwater Spinning Co. Ltd.

  50

  465

  11

  ESS Automotive Ltd.

  1,566

  3,750

  42

  BCO Technologies (NI) Ltd.

  6,581

  15,139

  43

  Sheppard Group Ltd.

  146

  915

  16

  Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

  800

  11,870

  7

  CFM Group Ltd.

  1,198

  5,820

  21

  Charles Bell (1963) Ltd.

  130

  425

  31

  The Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd.

  144

  615

  23

  Lee Apparel (UK) Ltd.

  931

  4,128

  23

  Crestacare (NI) Ltd.

  40

  138

  29

  Finlay Hydrascreens (Omagh) Ltd.

  576

  1,631

  35

  Schrader Electronics Ltd.

  831

  2,378

  35

  Scottish Seafoods Ltd.

  244

  893

  27

  Valence Technology BV

  25,625

  147,200

  17

  Adria Ltd.

  3,095

  8,535

  36

  Courtaulds Textiles (Holdings) Ltd.

  1,033

  4,168

  25

  MKF (UK) Ltd.

  2,815

  10,440

  27

  Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd.

  10,440

  36,600

  29

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  1,581

  3.514

  45

  314

  1993–94—Accepted Offers—externally owned companies

  Company name

  IDB asistance offered £'000s

  Total investment £'000s

  Per cent. contribution

  Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd.

  5,690

  17,000

  35

  Chambernet (UK) Ltd.

  23

  59

  39

  Allied Bakeries Ltd.

  143

  953

  15

  DDL Incorporated

  450

  1,813

  25

  Training and Business Group (Overseas)

  150

  312

  48

  CCA Electronic Ltd.

  4,360

  9,460

  46

  CV Home Furnishing Ltd.

  537

  2,029

  26

  Shorts Brothers Plc

  1,270

  12,715

  10

  Spanboard Products Ltd.

  542

  4,151

  13

  Spence Bryson

  180

  477

  38

  Unidare Plastics Ltd.

  880

  2,843

  31

  Michelin Tyre Plc

  1,804

  7,215

  25

  Total

  74,325

  318,646

  23

  1994–95—accepted offers—externally owned companies

  Company name

  IDB assistance offered £'000s

  Total investment £'000s

  Percentage contribution

  Transtec Foundries Ltd.

  4,158

  14,946

  28

  Courtaulds Textiles— (Holdings) Ltd.

  818

  4,138

  20

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  3,645

  15,462

  24

  Golden Vale Plc

  2,500

  12,509

  20

  C V Apparel Ltd.

  486

  1,800

  27

  Lucas Stability Electronics Ltd.

  495

  2,932

  17

  Allen Industrial Ltd.

  226

  543

  42

  Smurfit Corrugated Cases Ltd.

  3,000

  16,080

  19

  John Cleland & Son Ltd.

  343

  3,200

  11

  ABC Laboratories (Europe) Ltd.

  1,805

  2,937

  37

  Polystar (Ireland) Ltd.

  600

  2,388

  25

  NACCO Materials Handling (NI) Ltd.

  4,600

  6,331

  73

  Lurgan Fibre Ltd.

  930

  5,682

  16

  Glen Mouldings Ltd.

  1,259

  4,710

  27

  Perfecseal Ltd.

  1,442

  3,806

  38

  BKS Surveys Ltd.

  25

  184

  14

  Polarcup Ltd.

  2,090

  9,321

  22

  Bass Holdings Ltd.

  948

  3,132

  30

  Deahwa Metal Ltd.

  2,928

  7,004

  42

  Fujitsu Fulcrum Telecommunications Ltd.

  1,760

  3,624

  49

  Raelbrook (Group) Ltd.

  25

  580

  4

  Webtech (NI) Ltd.

  532

  1,773

  30

  British Telecommunications Plc

  453

  1,072

  42

  Schrader Electronics Ltd.

  162

  631

  26

  Real Software (NI) Ltd.

  138

  310

  45

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  11,200

  60,026

  19

  Rusch Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.

  900

  2,768

  33

  Michelin Tyre Plc

  3,000

  11,850

  25

  Glenbrook Foods Ltd.

  375

  2,006

  19

  Northern Telecom (Northern Ireland) Ltd.

  752

  3,625

  21

  Walter Alexander & Co. (Belfast) Ltd.

  136

  701

  19

  315

  1994–95—accepted offers—externally owned companies

  Company name

  IDB assistance offered £'000s

  Total investment£'000s

  Percentage contribution

  Dalgety Spillers Foods Ltd.

  84

  467

  18

  Radix Telecom Ltd.

  4,676

  19,084

  25

  Daewoo Electro Components (UK) Ltd.

  3,816

  9,218

  41

  Northern Bank Factors Ltd.

  367

  1,351

  27

  Harris Laboratories Ltd.

  401

  2,088

  35

  Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd.

  5,243

  14,869

  35

  Grand total

  65,598

  252,148

  26

  Students
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led to the increase in students attending institutions of higher education in the Republic of Ireland who were awarded maintenance grant by boards in Northern Ireland cited in his answer of 3 November 1995,Official Report, column 500; what was the cost for the most recent year for which figures are available; and what is his estimate of the growth of these numbers in 1996. [3542]

  Mr. Ancram
  Students from Northern Ireland can choose to study in the Republic of Ireland or any other country of the European Community. The increase in the number of students attending in the Republic of Ireland reflects this freedom of choice.

  In the 1994–95 academic year some £2.2 million was expended by the education and library boards on means-tested maintenance and some £3.1 million on tuition fees in respect of those students.

  The current estimate of the number of higher education students from Northern Ireland attending institutions in the Republic of Ireland in the 1995–96 academic year whose tuition fees will be paid by education and library boards is 2,000.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the population of Northern Ireland his Department estimates

  Manufacturing

  Services

  Retail distribution

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  March 1995

  96,990

  5,940

  271,090

  144,410

  30,730

  29,610

  September 1994

  97,430

  5,920

  270,430

  139,050

  31,040

  28,380

  September 1993

  95,780

  6,060

  267,740

  132,510

  30,060

  26,560

  September 1991

  99,390

  5,450

  266,590

  119,320

  30,390

  23,680

  No official projections of employment are made. Figures for September 1995 are not yet available. No figures are available for 1990.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The full-time/part-time breakdown of employees in employment is available for each of the last three years from the Quarterly Employment Survey and prior to this on a biennial basis from the Census of Employment.
  316
  (a) have knowledge of and (b) regularly use the Irish language. [3532]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population contains the most recent information on knowledge of the language. This indicates that 9.5 per cent. of those aged three and over had some ability in Irish. The 1991–92 continuous household survey shows that, of those people sampled who had some knowledge of the language, 1 per cent. of those aged 16 to 69 and 3 per cent. of those aged 3 to 15 used it in the home on a daily basis.

  Agricultural Income
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the gross income for each sector of Northern Ireland agriculture in cash and constant prices for each of the last 10 years. [3461]

  Mr. Ancram
  Aggregate income estimates for each sector of agriculture are not available. The table provides details of total income from farming in Northern Ireland as a whole for each year from 1985 to 1994, in current prices and in real terms in index number form.

  Total income from farming in Northern Ireland, 19685–1994

  Current prices £ million

  Real terms (Index 1990 = 100)1

  1985

  116.1

  115.3

  1986

  90.4

  86.7

  1987

  146.0

  134.6

  1988

  169.4

  148.9

  1989

  192.0

  156.4

  1990

  134.3

  100.0

  1991

  176.8

  124.3

  1992

  212.5

  144.1

  1993

  248.3

  165.8

  1994

  303.3

  197.6

  1Deflated by the retail prices index.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees in Northern Ireland in (i) manufacturing industry, (ii) the service industry and (iii) retailing in each of the last five years; and what his projections are for the next two years. [3457]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information available is as follows:

  Housing
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's selection criteria in non-priority cases to enable people who have recently moved from other parts of the United Kingdom to be eligible for housing earlier than in accordance with present residence requirement. [3537]

  Mr. Moss
  In June 1995 a working group was established comprising representatives from the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to review the Housing Executive's housing selection scheme and to make recommendations. It is planned to issue the group's findings and any proposed changes, for consultation, by the summer of 1996. It would be inappropriate to make changes to the present criteria pending the outcome of that review.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Irleand what returns the Housing Executive has made to the Inland Revenue over the last three financial years; and if he will list payments of housing benefit made to private landlords indicating how many different landlords were involved and how much benefit in total was specified. [3541]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has annually provided the Inland Revenue with details of all landlords in receipt of direct payments of housing benefit.

  The exact number of landlords to whom direct payments have been made is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The estimated number of landlords and the actual amount of benefit paid in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Estimated number of landlords

  Total payments made to landlords

  1992–93

  5,000

  29,086,050.88

  1993–94

  5,500

  36,234,396.67

  1994–95

  6,000

  43,783,407.12

  Claimant Travel Regulations
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the rules and declarations applying to those on unemployment benefit and/or income support who wish to travel within Northern Ireland or visit(a) Great Britain, (b) the Republic of Ireland and (c) another EU country; what assessments he has made of (a) the degree of compliance with and (b) the adequacy of the rules; and what proposals he has to change them. [3539]

  Mr. Moss
  Unemployed people claiming unemployment benefit and/or income support and travelling within Northern Ireland and Great Britain must remain available for work with an employer and take reasonable steps each week to find such work.

  Generally, unemployment benefit and income support are not payable outside the United Kingdom and this applies to people visiting the Republic of Ireland as for other European Union countries. The only exception for
  318
  unemployment benefit is that, under European Community law, benefit can continue to be paid for up to three months to unemployed nationals of a member state going to another member state specifically to seek work.

  Certain people on income support who are not in the employment field may go outside the United Kingdom and retain their entitlement for up to four weeks.

  All claimants are required to declare any relevant change of circumstances, including absence from their usual address.

  There is no indication that the current rules are not being complied with or are inadequate. The same rules apply throughout the United Kingdom and there are no plans at present to change them.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings have occurred(a) in total and (b) in each month since the twin ceasefires; and how many have been committed by each side. [3533]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of so-called punishment beatings carried out in the 14 months since I September 1994 is 223. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has attributed these to Republican and Loyalist groups as follows:

  Month

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  September 1994

  1

  8

  9

  October 1994

  1–13

  1

  2

  3

  14–31

  3

  3

  6

  November 1994

  5

  7

  12

  December 1994

  6

  6

  12

  January 1995

  6

  10

  16

  February 1995

  8

  11

  19

  March 1995

  3

  7

  10

  April 1995

  2

  4

  6

  May 1995

  12

  14

  26

  June 1995

  4

  13

  17

  July 1995

  11

  18

  29

  August 1995

  5

  12

  17

  September 1995

  4

  12

  16

  October 1995

  4

  21

  25

  Total

  75

  148

  223

  Drainage Culverting
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the last 10 drainage culverting operations of his Department, indicating the criteria used for choosing those particular sites, the cost per metre and the results of the value for money assessment that was made. [3540]

  Mr. Ancram
  The last 10 drainage culverting operations of the Department of Agriculture are listed, together with the reason for the works and cost per metre. 'Culverting works are only undertaken on watercourses which have been designated by the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland and if they are necessary(a) for flood

  319
  alleviation purposes, (b) to provide drainage infrastructure for new development, or (c) there are structural defects or hydraulic inefficiencies in existing culverts.

  All projects are subject to environmental impact assessment and economic appraisal and are only undertaken if the assessed benefits to society exceed the cost of the works.

  Watercourse name

  Reason for works

  Cost per metre £

  1.Killyliss Drain, Dungannon

  Structural defect in culvert

  110

  2.Berry Stream, Kilkeel

  Infrastructurec for new development

  430

  3.Urney Road Extension, Strabane

  Infrastructure for new development

  160

  4.Bell's Hill Drain, Castledawson

  Infrastructure for new development

  500

  5.Skeoge, Londonderry, phase III scheme

  Structural defect in culvert and infrastructure for new development

  2700

  6.Jubilee Terrace, Coleraine

  Infrastructure for new development Flood alleviation

  280

  7.Blaney Millrace, Enniskillen

  Food alleviation

  220

  8.Doogary Drain, Omagh

  Infrastructure for industrial development

  200

  9.Park Road, Strabane

  Infrastructure for new development

  250

  10.Strangford Road, Downpatrick

  Infrastructure for new development

  820

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3812]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No schemes under the private finance initiative, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1992, have been approved in Northern Ireland to date.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3830]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is estimated that the following amounts, rounded to the nearest £ million, will be levered in from the private sector:

  £million

  1995–96

  60

  1996–97

  50

  1997–98

  80

  1998–99

  80

  1999–00

  n/a

  2000–01

  n/a

  The information for 1996–97 onwards is also published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97.

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

Slaughterhouses
The Earl of Buchan The Earl of Buchan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that there are sufficient slaughterhouses in the south of England available for the slaughter of sheep.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. There are 80 slaughterhouses licensed to handle sheep which are located south of a line drawn from the Bristol Channel to Clacton-on-Sea.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer—up to a point. What further financial or other encouragement can the Minister offer to owners such as myself of small flocks of rare breed sheep? I should like to declare an interest—it being both right and fashionable, an interesting political coincidence in itself—as a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust Ltd. What encouragement can be offered to those who wish to spread the good word about the excellent quality of their meat in contrast to that pink plastic product which is sold in supermarkets and masquerades as lamb?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I find myself in total agreement with the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl. I go to some lengths to make sure that I buy my lamb from a good butcher who knows where to obtain the best lamb and slaughters it himself. I hope that other people will be able to do the same. It is difficult for a supermarket which has to sell a large volume of a product of consistent quality to rely on a rare breed which may be available in small numbers and only occasionally. Those who appreciate such factors know where to obtain the product. I hope that they will follow my example and go to their local butcher.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this is not the best place to talk about the Rare Breeds Survival Trust? Does he accept that there is a case in both social and animal welfare terms for maintaining an appropriate number of small slaughterhouses in rural areas provided that proper standards are maintained? Would this not be a suitable case for a sensible European subsidy?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is a good number of slaughterhouses. Out of 490 slaughterhouses in Britain, 206 have what we define as a low throughput. They seem to survive pretty well at present. We do not see any need for additional subsidy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend state how many slaughterhouses have closed in
964
the United Kingdom since 1990 largely as a result of zealous enforcement of European legislation? Can he say how many jobs have been lost as a result?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer either question except to say this: not as many as will be. There is still 40 per cent. over-capacity in slaughterhouses. That will inevitably result in further closures. There is no point in keeping open slaughterhouses that are not required.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if he crosses Offa's Dyke, he will find the best slaughterhouses in this country and the best lamb in the world?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, indeed, yes. I did just that last weekend.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if there are enough slaughterhouses in the country, will the Minister do his best to continue to ensure that sheep are exported dead rather than alive to avoid the unfortunate export trade involving cruelty to sheep?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. We are doing as much as we can to encourage the trade in dead rather than live meat. We believe that there is much to be gained in terms of value-added in this country as well as in the comfort of the animals concerned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that hundreds of slaughterhouses have been closed since 1990? Who decides whether a slaughterhouse should be closed? Is it the Department of Health, the people who enforce health standards, or by demand? If it is by demand, can the Minister state why demand has dropped suddenly since 1990?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a question of increased demand. It is mostly a question of expansion by the more efficient slaughterhouses and the less efficient finding it harder to survive.

Birds' Eggs: Smuggling
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are contributing to international arrangements to prevent the smuggling of rare birds' eggs.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government take seriously their commitments as a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The UK has led on a number of initiatives to enhance international enforcement. Trade in a wide range of birds' eggs is restricted under the convention and the UK Customs and Excise enforces the controls on imports from and exports to countries outside the EC.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Did he see the press

965
reports that eggs of rare birds had been discovered at an airport, concealed in special compartments of the culprit's underclothes, designed to continue incubation during the flight, thus illustrating the lengths to which crooks will go to obtain young birds of great value? Since British special agencies are now seeking a new role after the end of the cold war, can they not be used to help stop such pernicious trafficking?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, like my noble friend, I saw that press report. It gave a new twist to the idea of an undercover operation and a plot hatched somewhere between Australia and Wales.
We take very seriously such matters as the trade in birds, particularly in this case the interesting way in which the people chose to carry the eggs in order to keep them warm so that they could continue to be incubated when they reached Wales. I am happy to tell my noble friend that a court case has proceeded in Australia and people have been convicted and sent to prison. In this country the people involved have also been convicted after pleading guilty. They are awaiting sentence.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am intrigued that this is a Treasury matter. Can the Minister clarify how the law proceeds in this situation? Is it the case that the supplier, the smuggler, is committing an offence as well as the demander? Does Customs and Excise proceed by endeavouring to catch both those who are selling and those who are buying? Does it work from both ends in an attempt to stop what was rightly described as a pernicious trade?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I wondered why I had got this Question. I thought that it might be considered by my friends that I could handle difficult issues without dropping eggs all over the place.
The noble Lord is quite right that the authorities both in this country and in Australia have worked at investigating not just the person who carried the eggs and who was picked up at the airport but also the people taking them from the wild in Australia and supplying them, as well as the people incubating them in this country. So we take seriously our investigation into and our intelligence on the trade not only in birds' eggs but in birds, live animals and other species covered by international conventions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend make inquiries as to whether the penalties under our law for smuggling and stealing the eggs of rare birds are adequate and have been sufficiently updated to enable us to comply with our international obligations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that we are not fully complying with our international obligations. Certainly in Australia two of the people convicted received prison sentences of 18 months and one of six months. The judge still has to sentence the people convicted in this country. I shall
966
look into the point which my noble friend makes, but from what I have read I believe that we have sufficient powers to deal with people convicted of such offences.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what kind of rare birds they are? Are they hawks, parrots or geese which lay golden eggs?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if they were geese that laid golden eggs, I suppose it would be appropriate for the Treasury spokesman to answer. However, as these birds have not been found—not even apparently by the party opposite—it would appear to be parrots that are largely the victims in this and other cases. People in this country and other countries of Europe seem to wish to keep rare parrots, and their eggs become extremely valuable if they can be smuggled from the wild.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that press reports indicated that cockatoos were involved? In a lighter vein, if my suggestion about special agencies were to be adopted, might not the situation then be described as the successors of 007 being in pursuit of the chicks? Little would have changed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think I have gone far enough with these tempting analogies. As with other items smuggled—perhaps I dare say more serious items like drugs—Customs has moved very much into the intelligence and investigation field. Apprehension and conviction are part of the success of its intelligence operations.

Veterinary Medicines and Pesticides
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to respond to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee fifth report on the Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords. The response is due on or before 2nd January 1996.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of one recommendation from the committee? I shall quote it:
"We recommend that the responsibility for the monitoring and subsequent investigation of human suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines should be removed from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate: this responsibility should be carried out instead by an independent research institute or university department".
In view of the excellent infectious diseases surveillance and control set-up in this country, will the Minister's boss consider handing over the surveillance of chemical exposures to those people? It would take only a little

967
training and there could be no question of any bias. Will the Minister pass that message on for me? I should be grateful.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, I will pass that message on. I shall respond to the noble Countess's question at the same time as the response to the report as a whole is published.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in their response will the Government take into account that besides the broad and general commendation the committee gave to the two directorates, it also mentioned illogicality in operation, delay, duplication, lack of commercial awareness, over-charging, lack of commercial understanding, over-regulation, unnecessary bureaucracy and a lack of communication? Do the Government regard the pesticides safety and the veterinary medicines directorates as good examples of executive agencies in practice?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I must not be drawn into offering a reply in advance of that which is due to the committee in another place.The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the committee recommeded that OP drugs should be on prescription only. Do Her Majesty's Government accept the precautionary principle that where there are serious concerns relating to the safety of a particular pesticide its use should be withdrawn or restricted until a new risk/benefit analysis can be made? Or are we to wait until the ending of the present epidemiological study, research project No. 3304, at Edinburgh University, which I understand will not be completed before 1999, before any further restrictive action is taken?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we take the precautionary principle very seriously. It is evident from a number of recent announcements on other types of pesticide that we act when there is thin evidence rather than waiting until the case is absolutely proved. So far as the long-term effects of continued exposure to small amounts of organophosphates are concerned, our evidence is that there is no effect. However, we have been convinced by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and others that we should re-examine the matter in a long-term study to establish whether, in spite of nothing being evident at the moment, there actually is something to be seen. Were we to believe at the moment that there was evidence beyond what we know to be the effects of acute exposure, we would take action. However, at the moment, we believe there is none.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason why no evidence exists is that no research has been done? Again, will he and the health Minister study those who believe that they are suffering the chronic effects of long-term exposure to OPs? We are still getting nowhere so far as they are concerned. Some are very ill and desperate for treatment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a good deal of research has been done. However, it has not proved conclusive. It produced no evidence of long-term effects. I am aware that the noble Countess wishes us to look particularly
968
at those who claim to have been affected in this way. Unfortunately, that would not provide the right basis for a scientific evaluation as to whether or not there is such an effect. A study must be made of the population as a whole to see whether these effects are more common in those who have been exposed to organophosphates as opposed to those who have not. So far as the treatment of such people is concerned, I will draw the remarks of the noble Countess to the attention of my noble friend.

Westminster City Council Revenue Support Grant
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the Revenue Support Grant for Westminster City Council is calculated.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the revenue support grant is calculated on the basis of the standard spending assessment of local authorities.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply to this Question, which to my surprise appears in my name and in this form. I saw it for the first time when I sat down in the Chamber this afternoon!
The Minister will be aware that there has been a considerable amount of criticism and public examination of the recent activities of Westminster City Council. Will he tell the House what is the present position in regard to that examination?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is as much of a surprise to me that the Question was not tabled by the noble Lord himself as it is to him. I can only wonder who tabled it.
The simple answer is that all SSAs are calculated in the same way throughout the country. There is a considerable amount of discussion with the local authorities associations each year on what makes up the SSAs. That has continued, and will continue. Indeed a number of the changes being made this year are due to the initiatives of the local authorities associations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that Westminster City Council, according to its own figures, has a budget in 1995–96 below the standard spending assessment set by the Government for grant distribution purposes? According to the council, were it to budget up to the SSA, the council tax, instead of being £275, would be £550. On what basis, and why, do the Government consider that Westminster City Council should spend more than does the council itself?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite surprising in some respects. The whole purpose of local authorities is that they manage their affairs as effectively and efficiently as possible. The fact that Westminster City Council does that better than almost any other

969
council is a great credit to it—particularly taking into account the fact that over the years it has received lower figures for SSA than have, on average, the other inner London authorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not quite sure that the noble Earl understands the calculation of the standard spending assessment. It is the Government's view on what local councils should spend per head. If the noble Earl can get that into his head, perhaps he will answer my question as to why the Government think Westminster should spend more than the council itself believes it should.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I find that question, even by the noble Lord's standards, peculiarly difficult to comprehend. The standard spending assessment is made up of a number of standard spending assessments for education, social services, highways maintenance and so forth. That is the basis of calculation for standard spending assessment. On top of that, it is up to the local authority to run its business as well as possible. If it runs its business efficiently by not setting a higher council tax, that is a good thing. It is funny—is it not?—that the council in question is Conservative-run.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as a Westminster taxpayer. Is the Minister aware that, whatever the basis of calculation, most of the taxpayers there approve of it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. He is absolutely right. I was also quite impressed to find that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has taken the precaution of living in Wandsworth, which also happens to have a Conservative-controlled council with one of the lowest rates of council tax.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Westminster City Council is one of the best city councils in the country and has the admiration not only of those who live in it but also of those who, like myself, live near it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. He makes a perfectly valid point. I declare an interest: I also live in the environs of Westminster City Council. It conducts itself very effectively, very efficiently and very well.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while conceding to the noble Earl the wisdom of Westminster City Council, which he admires so much, in disposing of its cemeteries at such small cost and without in any way querying his right to put the affairs of local authorities under a microscope as in the case of Lambeth, is it not high time, in view of the fact that everybody knows what is happening in Westminster, that a searchlight is put on Westminster City Council rather than its affairs being swept under the carpet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if everyone knows what is happening in Westminster City Council, I cannot see
970
that there is much point in putting a searchlight on it. The matter of the cemeteries is one for Westminster City Council and its electorate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us are a little puzzled by the warm tribute that he paid to Westminster City Council, in view of the allegations that it coldly and deliberately moved families into public housing knowing that that housing was riddled with asbestos, therefore causing great danger to the health of the families concerned?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter which is being considered. If the noble Lord were to modify all his views by the fact that certain scandals or so-called scandals are reported
in the newspapers, it would be very difficult ever to come to a reasonable judgment. If there is a scandal or a matter for disapproval it will be investigated.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as both a Westminster ratepayer and a former Westminster City councillor in the days before Shirley Porter was made its leader. Will the Minister confirm that, over the years since the poll tax was introduced, both Westminster City Council and Wandsworth City Council, which he just mentioned, have had a disproportionately large share of central government funding, to the point where—as the Mayor of Leeds said some years ago—if other local authorities had had such central government support, they could have declared a dividend rather than charging poll tax or council tax?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on having been a member of the Westminster City Council. It was a pity that it was before Dame Shirley Porter. Perhaps it did not do quite so well then.
The noble Lord shakes his head. The fact is that Westminster City Council has done very well. It has a smaller proportion of the increases that have been available to other inner London boroughs. Some noble Lords may find it hard to believe, but Westminster City ' Council is regarded certainly as one of the six most deprived councils in the United Kingdom. Indeed, one report from the South Bank University ranks it as the fourth most deprived council. That is the reason why it is necessary to provide funds.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, despite all the supplementary questions which seem to have moved in an opposite direction, do I understand my noble friend's Answer to the Question on the Order Paper to be that the revenue support grant of Westminster City Council is calculated in exactly the same way as for all the other London borough councils?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend, with his usual perspicacity, has got the answer precisely correct.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is the Minister aware that Westminster City Council considers itself vulnerable to the criticism that it receives double compensation for the costs arising from the influx of commuters, tourism and visitors to the city? Is he also aware that that form of double compensation,

971
according to a document that I have in my hand, is of concern to some councillors in Westminster, in that, if there is a new government in central Westminster (if I may so put it), that double compensation might be removed? Furthermore, I am glad that the Minister is satisfied with the performance of Westminster City Council but does he recognise that Westminster City Council receives 91 per cent. of its budget requirement from central government compared with the national average of 84 per cent?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. He said that Westminster City Council considers that it is vulnerable because, as he put it, it is double counted. The fact is that visitors and commuters mean that a local authority faces higher costs than would otherwise be the case. The SSA (standard spending assessment) reflects those higher costs. The London boroughs of Camden, Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, as well as the local authorities in major cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, all do well out of the fact that commuters are taken into account.
I understood the noble Lord to say that Westminster City Council has more money than other local authorities. The fact is that among the inner London authorities Tower Hamlets receives a rate support grant of £1,369; Hackney receives £1,207; and Islington receives £1,038. Westminster comes far below at £999. So it has a smaller proportion than any of the others.
The noble Lord speculates in saying that, if there were to be a change of central government, the double compensation would be removed. I can only tell him that he had better watch out. The grant is calculated in order to ensure that the councils have the correct backing for their needs. If the Labour Party were to say, "When we come in, we shall remove money from the local authorities", it would be a matter of great interest to the local authorities—perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to sit in his place for just a short while longer—but the noble Lord need not worry too much, because he will not be there.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I feel that I listen enough to the noble Earl. The double compensation relates not just to the SSA but also to the parking income which Westminster Council cashes in. That is where the double compensation comes in. I hope that the noble Earl has been able to grasp that. If he has not, perhaps he will make an effort to do so and write to me about the double compensation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do my best to grasp the noble Lord's points. Sometimes they are a little easier than at other times. If I have failed on this occasion, I shall certainly write to him. It will be a most charming letter in which he will no doubt find that I say that I am absolutely right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister admit that, despite the apparently obscure nature of the Question, we have succeeded in establishing that there is a problem in Westminster City Council, that it has been going on for some time and that it requires further examination? If the Question has only done that, it has
972
done something. Will he accept that this is a matter which must not be allowed to rest and only the fact that we are approaching the 30-minute limit prevents me from continuing at the present time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord always has an ingenious method of coming to a conclusion. I0 thought that the one conclusion which we had reached was that Westminster City Council is treated exactly the same as everyone else and there is nothing to worry about.

The Elderly: Long-term Care
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree Lord Dean of Harptree rose to call attention to policies for the long-term care of the elderly; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is to follow me in this debate. I feel sure that the whole House will wish to offer him warm congratulations on his 90th birthday yesterday.
I begin by declaring two interests. First, I fall into the category concerned in the debate. In fact, according to my grandchildren, I am positively ancient. I call it maturity, to which they reply, "Does that mean that we are immature?" My reply to that is, "No, it means that you are just maturing". Such good humoured banter can readily take place within families. My second interest to declare is that I am fortunate enough to be in receipt of a national insurance pension and also a war pension. I am particularly grateful for the war pension because the Inland Revenue is not allowed to get at it.
This debate on the long-term care of the elderly covers a vast subject. I am very glad that it has attracted the attention of noble Lords who have vast experience and great knowledge of the subject. As your Lordships o well know, the background to the debate is that the number of elderly people as a proportion of the population has increased and will continue to increase. In our population, the over-65s now number one in six. It is calculated that by the middle of the next century, they will number one in four. Of that group, the most rapidly growing in number are the over-85s. There are now about a million in the country and it is expected that that number will treble to about 3 million by the middle of the next century. Clearly, that has obvious implications for financial and budgetary policy, as indeed the French are finding to their discomfiture at the present moment.
I propose to deal first with cash benefits, particularly pensions, and then to say a few words about the boundaries between health and other care services. With regard to cash services, as your Lordships know, 50 years ago the Beveridge Report established the concept of universality. Virtually everyone pays a contribution, as do employers, and in return qualifies for benefit in the main exigencies of life—birth, death, sickness, injury, unemployment and retirement. That concept of universality has been

973
modified over the years for some benefits, but not for pensions, which is by far the biggest item. Although the scheme is called "nationl insurance" it is not insurance in the accepted sense of the word. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme; it is a transfer of resources between generations.
Another factor to be considered is that for many years governments of all political colours have felt it right to uprate the benefit each year to compensate for rises in the cost of living. Inevitably, as a result of those factors, the cost of pensions rises year by year.
When the Beveridge concept was first introduced there were few occupational pension schemes outside the public service. Indeed, most people, on retiring, had limited savings and there was much less home ownership than exists today. A great deal has changed over the past 50 years. A growing number of people now retire with an occupational or personal pension and there is a far higher level of saving and home ownership. Many retired people are now in receipt of three incomes and their liabilities are reduced. Their children are normally grown up and off their hands and they have probably paid off their mortgages. Admittedly, they may have new liabilities for long-term care, but many of their earlier obligations have been removed.
In the light of those changes the Government, to their credit, introduced a series of reforms designed to concentrate resources on those in real need and to make savings where justified. As a result, the projected rate of growth in social security expenditure has been modified for the years ahead, though it is still very large. Following the uprating statement made the other day, the cost of social security benefits in 1996 will be no less than £90 billion. That is an average of £15 per working day for every working person in the land. Again, by far the biggest item is pensions and income support for the elderly.
Against that background I ask whether the government reforms have gone far enough. I doubt it. Are we still placing too big a burden on future generations? I believe we are. Is universality in pensions still justified, 50 years after Beveridge? I question that. Clearly any reform must be carried out on a long-term basis. The state entered into a contract with pensioners and that must be honoured. Understandably, pensioners have an expectation that pensions will be paid. Any changes therefore must be worked out and introduced on a long-term basis.
I believe that the time has come when we must consider some form of voluntary contracting-out of state contributions and pensions for those who make adequate private provision for themselves. I do not anticipate a great pronouncement from the Minister today on this point. However, I hope that the matter will be discussed inside and outside Parliament, and it would be helpful if agreement could be reached on an acceptable way forward.
I turn now to the care services. As there are more elderly people and they are living longer, the need for medical treatment in hospital and care in the community is bound to grow. Fifty years ago "geriatrics" was very
974
much a Cinderella, and elderly people who could not look after themselves either lived with younger relatives or ended their days in long-stay geriatric wards in our hospitals. Since then there have been enormous advances in medical techniques—organ replacement is an obvious example. The emphasis now is on rehabilitation and helping the elderly to keep active. The phenomenon of the healthy elderly is well known. In fact, there are many good examples of that in your Lordships' House.
Inevitably the cost of services is bound to grow. The Government have responded to the demand. Since 1979 expenditure on the National Health Service has increased in real terms by more than 70 per cent. and an additional £1 billion will be available for next year. There has also been a big increase in expenditure on community services. Around 42 per cent. of total hospital and community care expenditure is for people who are over 65, though they only number 16 per cent. of the population. That illustrates the high priority being given to services for the elderly.
We must not exaggerate the problems. Only around 2 per cent. of over-65s are likely to be in hospital at any one time. The vast majority live in the community in their own homes either without help or with some assistance, such as Meals on Wheels, home helps and professionals keeping a friendly eye on them. Others will need more expensive care in sheltered accommodation, residential homes or nursing homes.
A variety of help is available. But that raises the question of who does what and who pays. A lot of work has been done in recent years on the right boundaries between health and social care. There is still a need to clarify those boundaries and obtain greater consistency across the country. The BMA is understandably anxious that the National Health Service should accept full responsibility for medical care. Organisations like the Alzheimer's Disease Society and others involved in long-term care are increasingly worried about reductions in National Health Service provision.
Time does not allow me to develop that important point. But whoever provides the service, somebody must pay, whether it is the National Health Service where treatment and accommodation are free; or whether it is the local authority or a private institution where services are usually provided on a means test basis. The key question is: what is the right balance between state and private finance? Your Lordships will be well aware of the anxiety among elderly people and their families about paying for long-term care in residential accommodation and nursing homes. We are all familiar with the anxious questions: Will I need it? If I do need it, can I afford it? What will happen if money runs out? What about the nest egg that I am hoping to hand on to the children? It is no use modifying inheritance tax if there is nothing to inherit.
I warmly welcome the proposals in the Budget which tackle these anxieties. First, capital limits are to be increased so that elderly people in residential accommodation can keep more of their money before having to pay. The lower threshold is to be raised from £3,000 to £10,000 and the upper threshold is to go up

975
from £8,000 to £16,000. That is a great improvement but there is a snag, as there always is with thresholds; namely, some people will be just on the wrong side of the threshold. They will naturally resent their position.
Secondly, I am very glad to see that the Government have announced that benefits from a range of insurance policies which provide long-term care are to be exempt from tax. That should encourage people to insure and, above all, to start insuring in good time during their working lives.
The third point in the Budget which I warmly welcome is the consultation which will take place about the possibility of occupational pension schemes enabling pensioners to defer some income early in retirement so as to have more income later to help with the cost of long-term care. That greater flexibility is highly desirable although, as I am sure your Lordships recognise, it can create problems for occupational pension schemes.
Finally, the Government have announced that there will be consultation on a range of proposals to encourage private provision. They intend—I am very glad to see it—to develop the concept of partnership schemes which combine state provision with rewards for those who are thrifty and make their own provision.
These are all steps in the right direction but, inevitably, many of them will take time to mature. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the possibility of helping with nursing costs for those who are in nursing homes by putting them more on a parallel with the free treatment which is available in the National Health Service. I recognise that this is asking for an increase in expenditure, but I understand that if such provision did exist, at the present moment the cost would be about £150 million a year.
It may be said by some, "Why bother with long-term insurance since only a minority are likely to need it?". But that is to misunderstand the nature of insurance. We take out life assurance but we hope that we will not die yet. We insure our houses but we hope that they will not burn down. We insure our cars but we hope that there will not be an accident. I hope that we shall reach the stage, with government encouragement, when it will be regarded as important to take out long-term care insurance as to join occupational pension schemes or take out a personal pension.
I am sorry that I have detained your Lordships for rather a long time. I look forward to the wealth of knowledge and experience which is clearly going to follow in this debate. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House, particularly older Members, will be grateful to the noble Lord for raising these far-reaching issues. I hope he will forgive me if I do not take up with him the all-important financial aspects of these matters, which I studied many years ago when I was a personal assistant for three years to Sir William Beveridge and he was drawing up the plans for the
976
welfare state. Luckily, I am able to leave all such crucial matters to my noble friend and acting Leader Lady Jay, who is about half my age and twice as well informed on all such issues.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to the fact that I have become 90. There are certain advantages and certain disadvantages to being 90. You get a lot of friendly comment. The late Kingsley Martin, editor of the New Statesman, said, "What's gone wrong? No one is being nasty to me any more. Aren't they frightened any longer?" So that is one danger as you get older. In fact, it is rather like winning a lottery. It is no virtue of yours that you have achieved this so-called feat. On the other hand, you do not get any money out of it. Equally, no one imagines that you are better off as a result. If you won the lottery people would come begging at your door and overwhelm you. But no one thinks of a nonagenarian as having anything to spare. So there are benefits and disadvantages.
I shall speak from what one might call a broadly human point of view about these matters. I speak as by no means the oldest Member of the House. Our senior prefect is the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I gather that the news from the hospital is rather better. I should like to feel that we can send a message of goodwill to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who is aged 97. When I last asked him, "What's it like, Douglas? How do you do it? How are you so vigorous at 97?", speaking as one who is in training for the top office, he said, "I have two rules. Live every day as if it were your last and never accept a post-dated cheque". There are other noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord Soper, preaching away in the open air without a microphone. He is 92 or 93. There is the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, aged 95, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and other noble Lords may come to mind. So I am by no means the senior. However, I speak as one of the "oldies". I might at least call myself that.
The oldies have certain physical and medical needs. However, on the psychological side, it is worth asking ourselves what old people do need. To start with, they need company. Some of us are very lucky in that when we are old we have a loving wife and so we are well looked after. Others are not so fortunate, or they may have lost their loving partner quite recently. One's heart goes out to them.
What can be done? The carers must try to provide something that they have lost. Activity and occupation are very much harder to provide for people as their disabilities grow but an effort must be made. However, the particular point I want to speak about is the need to give them what I call respectful help. As one gets older one's physical disabilities increase, although one likes to think that one's knowledge becomes greater and greater and that one becomes wiser and wiser. One may be mistaken in that but there is no mistake in that one's physical disabilities increase.
The problem about old people is that they become very sensitive. It is difficult to know quite when to offer them help. I was brought up to offer my seat to a lady on the tube or anywhere else. Nowadays, if a lady offers her seat to me on the tube, I am in two minds about it,

977
because I may be going only from Westminster to Sloane Square. In that case I would probably not accept it unless I was very tired. However, if I am going to Ealing or somewhere similarly far away, I gracefully accept it. That is one problem with the elderly: how to give them help? When you drop something on the floor people rush to pick it up. I fell down in the tube the other day and I think eight people tried to pull me to my feet. I could have got on very much better without them, but the intention was good.
It is a question of how one provides tactful help. I merely mention these aspects about the caring professions. As regards care, respectful help and company, one can find one place in the world where everything possible is done; namely, in this beloved Chamber in which we sit. There is no doubt that for old people this is the ideal haven; a sort of Valhalla. That is partly due to the wonderful behaviour of noble Lords and Baronesses, but it is also due to the staff. Everyone who comes to this House must know, and old people in particular, that we owe an immense debt to its unique staff.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, may I first add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his 90th birthday and say how grateful I am for what he said. I feel a certain honour speaking in the same debate. I thank him for those words. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for initiating this debate.
Obviously, long-term care of the elderly is going to be one of the large social problems in the next century. Noble Lords will know that by the year 2020, for example, the percentage of people aged 65 years and over will have doubled from the 16 per cent. it is today. Furthermore, there will be fewer adult children about to support them. The proportion of funding spent on them is already 42 per cent. of the available healthcare funds, and that will have grown proportionately.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I speak out of my own experience as one now ordained for 42 years. First, the care of the elderly during that time has vastly improved. I found as a curate that old people's homes were by no means pleasant to visit. There was the smell of over-cooked vegetables coming from the kitchen. We may speak of the setting-up of homes for the elderly as a growth industry, but things are much better regulated. Such homes have to be registered and inspected. The improvement is obvious. At the same time, we should remember that about 96 per cent. of those over the age of 65 actually live in the community and that is good. Since 1978 the number of consultant geriatricians has increased by 81 per cent.
Secondly, my observation of the elderly leads me to the conviction that some of the problems of old age begin in youth and middle age. Giving in to hypochondria; becoming too reliant on the other partner in a marriage; unwise eating and drinking; and the failure to take exercise, to keep the mind active and to maintain a general interest in the world and its activities
978
will almost certainly make people prematurely aged. That is why "ageism" is so false. It is possible to be young at 85 years of age or even at 90 and beyond; it is possible to be aged at 65. Sometimes wisdom is to be found in the jingles of birthday cards, such as, "Roses are red, violets are blue; it is alright to be 60 if you feel 22".
Thirdly, it is almost too obvious to remark that as people grow older they want to retain autonomy, independence and dignity. Perhaps I may be personal here. My mother was fully switched on at 95 years of age and did not need to have things explained to her by her grandchildren. It always saddened me when people started calling her "dearie". Elderly people want to retain their dignity and privacy and, if possible, their mobility. The quality of life depends on the availability of people like ourselves who are prepared to see that these things are safeguarded and provided for.
People who move into a residential establishment should do so by positive choice. It is all too easy in your Lordships' House to think of the world as being like ours, but I have to tell noble Lords that on housing estates and in the inner cities there is not the provision that we would expect to find in our own homes. There is not the space for older people to live under the same roof with comfort. I repeat: people who move into a residential establishment should, if possible, do so by positive choice.
A distinction should be made between the need for medical care and the need for services. No one should be required to change permanent accommodation in order to receive services which could be made available to them in their own homes. Living in a residential establishment should be a positive experience ensuring a better quality of life than the resident could enjoy in any other setting at that age. There is a need for local authorities to make special provision for ethnic minorities who may have slightly different needs and expectations. All those in residential accommodation should have access to relatives and friends.
Local churches have a great responsibility and opportunity to be the suppliers of those who visit the lonely, the elderly and the housebound. Without complacency, I dare to say that this is happening in scores of communities, often rural communities, and does not even need organising. It happens in the interests of an unspoken neighbourliness. Throughout the Church of England—I can only speak for my own Church—I am happy to vouch for the fact that local lay people, carefully selected and trained, are being formed into teams of visitors.
There must always be a readiness to listen. The visiting of those who are disadvantaged must never be a form of ego trip for the visitor. I also dare to think that a lively faith in the goodness and mercy of the Creator can help to make the elderly philosophical, able to live one day at a time, able to see that life is all about a progress and able to listen to and support those who are in the thick of their own careers and bringing up their own families. Vanity is not acceptable at any stage of our lives and an old person's vanity is to be avoided, if at all possible. I can see how easy it is for it to develop in myself.

979
I conclude with something which is possibly controversial. I have spent my life as a parson. I have noticed a growing and well nigh incomprehensible complexity in the funding of care for the elderly. Such funding is extremely and increasingly expensive. It is for that reason that I deplore the fact that political parties on either side of your Lordships' House refuse to go to the electorate with proposals for taxation which would provide core funding for both medical and social care. If they did so, that would be a signal that, as a nation corporately, we are prepared to provide long-term care for the elderly.
Since my time as a curate, the standard of living has risen immensely. The United Kingdom now has far more millionaires than was the case 40 years ago. The money is there. It is my firm conviction that we need a re-writing and updating of the Beveridge Report. Mixed funding is too catch-as-catch-can. General practitioners are both providers and purchasers. In my diocese it has been necessary to establish a forum so that people can be sure who wants to purchase and who will be the provider. It is all so complex. Surely the time for integration has come, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, implied. The purchaser/provider situation creates confusion and uncertainty.
Today we are considering one of the potentially most serious social problems of our time. Can we not all commit ourselves to its proper funding? After all, self-interest so often dictates that which justice demands.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for having launched the debate in such an open spirit and for raising such a wide range of issues upon which I am sure that we shall all touch during the afternoon. Perhaps I may join in wishing my noble friend Lord Longford—I hope I may call him that on this occasion—a happy birthday. I am sure that we all recognise that it was a great privilege to hear him make such a moving speech on a subject which touches us all now and which will certainly touch most of us later. I must also apologise for being unable to stay until the end of the debate because I have a long-standing appointment at 4.30 p.m.
I urge the Government to consider having a principle upon which their attitude towards the care of the elderly may be based so as to direct the policies and strategies which will enable them to deal with the problems. I listened with the greatest of respect to the right reverend Prelate, but I do not believe that the basic problem about the care of the elderly is funding. The problem is people's attitudes, and in particular the attitude of the young towards looking after the elderly.
I have a small house on the Continent. One of the two neighbouring families had the mother-in-law living with them until she died at the age of 95. In the house next door the elderly grandfather lived with his family until the age of 96. Both of those individuals were cared for and loved by their families. In former times we would have said that the families were hard working agricultural "peasants" who worked their own land. It
980
would have been considered a great insult to suggest to those families that those two elderly people should be sent to a home. Great care and loving attention were given to those elderly individuals who I happened to get to know well over the years. Unfortunately, we do not see that attitude very often in this country. Many excuses are given, such as funding, the size of the home, the distance involved or the fact that the children are busy.
I should like the Government to consider the idea that the principle behind the funding and running of policies towards the elderly should be based, wherever possible, on keeping people in their own homes. On that basis, I think that we can then deal with many other aspects of the problem, upon which noble Lords have already touched. I am not talking now about people who are severely disabled or ill and who need constant nursing. I am talking about the vast majority of elderly people, such as those many of us know. I am not talking only about our friends in this Chamber but about those who are happy to be living with their cracked teapot and little battery clock. Those people are just as happy living with their own things in their own homes as those who have Crown Derby and a Tompion clock. We should recognise that most old people do not want to be moved from their own home. Unfortunately, very often old people do not last all that long when they go into a residential home. I wonder how many of us have seen that happen to people who are put into a residential home because they cannot be looked after in their own home.
The right reverend Prelate said that old people should enter residential care only if they want to, but too often in this country they go into care because there is no alternative. At the moment about 264,000 elderly people who are not disabled are living in residential homes. I consider that a blight on our society and a condemnation of the way in which families treat the elderly without respect and without dignity.
Perhaps I may put three practical points to my noble friend the Minister. They relate to financial and other arrangements and could, I think, contribute to making it more possible for the elderly to live in their own homes.
I refer first to inheritance tax. I was grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for increasing the threshold to £200,000 in the Budget. That sounds a lot of money to many people and it was said that only 22,000 people actually pay inheritance tax. However, the fact is that there are 750,000 houses in this country in the G and H council tax bands, which means that they are worth well over £200,000. That means that the owner will be faced with having to sell the property either to pay for future care or to avoid the children being left with severe death duties. We have already seen quite a strong reaction to the threshold being raised. Many people will have to pay about £18,000 if the testator dies before next April. That is just one example relating to the many people who will have to pay death duty on a home. Therefore, I urge that consideration should be given either to abolishing inheritance tax altogether or to raising the threshold so that it covers the vast majority of homes.

981
A third alternative would be to treat the home of an individual who dies in exactly the same way as property is treated for capital gains tax purposes. Tax should not be paid on a home which is left to a beneficiary who is a child of the family. That would follow many continental tax provisions. In both France and Italy, for instance, the children of the testator—or, indeed, of the intestate—pay little or no inheritance tax precisely so that the family home can continue to be used down the generations. Surely that contributes to the stability of the family. I am not talking only about money, but about the family itself. Whether it is a large or a small house, the family should be able to inherit it and to carry on living in it in the same way as the parents who worked so hard to build and maintain it. That would make a major contribution to the question of the care of the elderly.
There is another aspect. If the basis of the policy is that we should keep elderly people in their own homes, we have to be able to provide that they will be looked after. I should like to refer to a recently introduced French policy which is seen to be working extremely well. Local authorities find people to do domestic work or nursing in the home of an elderly person and, although the elderly pay for it, what they pay is 50 per cent. tax deductible. Many people could pay a small amount for a few hours of individual help a week. That would cost far less than going into a residential home but would enable them to live in their own homes.
That tax deduction system has apparently been working extremely well. It now appears—this was reported by the INSPE, which is the official institute working in conjunction with the Minister of Employment in Paris, and so as far as I know these figures are official—that over 50 per cent. of all old aged pensioners who stay at home can now employ home helps or extra nursing care. That enables them to stay in their own homes. Furthermore, it has created 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs. Of course much of this work was done not exactly on the black market, but it was not declared for social security. The workers have now been identified and several thousand people now have proper jobs and can do this kind of work.
That is something that should be looked at. I do not say that we should follow the same method. The supplying of home care does not necessarily mean dishing out dependency allowances and so forth. Many people would be prepared to pay an amount if they knew that it could be deducted from income tax. We know that a vast number of people in this country pay some form of income tax.
The third point to which I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister arose out of a case reported in The Times in June of this year. A granny flat which was annexed to a family home was found to be liable for council tax. That provision in the Local Government (Finance) Act surely needs revision, but the interpretation was rightly made by the judge. The family had in good faith built the annexe for the grandmother. It was then found that it was not considered to be part of the same dwelling as the family home but a separate dwelling. That is just another
982
element in the accumulation of elements. If those points could be looked at they would contribute towards enabling the elderly to stay in their own homes.
I hope that the Government will consider these aspects seriously. An enormous amount can be done, not just through funding, as has understandably been mentioned, but through encouraging young people to recognise that they have a responsibility for the elderly. That is something that will be more and more necessary in the future.
I should like to conclude on a point which was raised by the right reverend Prelate. I have often met young people who have derived immense personal satisfaction—that might be considered a sin by some, but I find it gratifying—and enjoy calling on elderly people in their own homes. The elderly too receive immense pleasure and joy from visits by the young. In that way we might see a more cohesive social fabric in our society, where it is not just the family involved but there is a linking of the old with the young and the young with the old. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take those thoughts on board.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am honoured to be speaking in this debate. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing this important topic, and I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on that famous 90. We are now looking for the century, please.
I should like to make it clear that I strongly support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about weaving elderly people into the community. I want to make it clear also that I am not a tax pundit. I am here because many people have made it plain to me that they believe the new problem of the elderly can be laid at the feet of my profession—the doctors. "Before you medical people got into top gear, we had less of this problem than we have now". I want to speak to that point and to draw some conclusions from it.
In my family we had the granddaughter of one of the Mayo brothers who started the famous Mayo Clinic in America. At a family party to honour her 90th birthday she made a remark which is stamped indelibly on all our hearts, as Calais might have been. She announced to us all—great grandchildren and the rest—"My dears, do remember that old age is not for cissies". She was of course referring to the many things with which people of advancing years have to deal.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, made some lovely points about people offering him seats on the tube, picking him up, and picking up anything he dropped. There are many other things that elderly people have to put up with, so that we should see in them the great veterans of living. That is why I was so touched by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about integrating the old and the young. I do not feel that enough young people—I suppose it is my age that makes me feel this—are aware that they can talk to the veterans of wars and many historic events, which they may be happy to be able to report down the line to their children and grandchildren.

983
In the medical profession I have been very much involved with the need for gerontological research. It was almost absent. There were three or four Cinderellas in the medical profession. One was geriatrics, and, funnily enough, another was psychiatry. I can remember a secretary of the MRC saying to me when I went in to talk about a new project for which I wanted money, "I do hope you are not going to produce a psychiatric project for me, Butterfield". That was because psychiatry was not then thought to be scientific.
There are other topics. One which worries me is the way health promotion seems to have been relegated by so many people in my profession as an inconsequential game which one plays if one has any time left in one's diary. Good health promotion can make a great deal of difference to the burden that elderly people will place upon the social and health services.
I shall not repeat an exercise I urged upon noble Lords, which involved flexing the knees to strengthen the quadriceps muscle so that they could get up easily when they were sitting down. If I am called upon to do so, I will perhaps repeat it in the Dining Room.
Since I became a young medical student, the advances in high technological medicine and the development of medical care have revolutionised all our lives. I suppose 100 years ago there was the feeling in the minds of many people that if they had pains in their old age they were probably due to sins they had committed in their youth. I find now that hardly a patient will put up with a fig of pain. They all want a pill which will remove not just the pain but preferably the condition.
I was entertained to hear on my way from Cambridge that Papandreou is going to have a tracheotomy. He is on a ventilator because, of course, he has pneumonia; and he is on a kidney machine because he has renal failure. I am afraid that 50 years ago the Greeks would be having to look for a new prime minister. Now, his ex-air hostess wife can announce to the media men entering his sick room, "Don't you suggest that he is not up to running the country. He certainly is". That is a great credit to his doctors and all the research into the antibiotics that have helped his pneumonia go, the machinery that keeps him breathing satisfactorily, and the artificial kidney machine.
However, I wish to make the point that in a Utopia it would be possible for everyone to come through life and have an equal chance in the final stakes. But biology is not like that. Some conditions remain the centre of interest for the likes of me. They are conditions which will probably get one into health service care. Ever since Harvey took an interest in the circulation, which he discovered, this country has always had plenty of doctors who are interested in people who have difficulties with this little pump working away in the chest. If coronary bypass surgery is required we can do it; if the pulse becomes seriously irregular we can fit a pacemaker. Your Lordships are looking at a bionic man; I have had both those operations.
I also wish to point out to your Lordships that if one has the misfortune to have senile dementia or pre-senile dementia, into which we have not undertaken so much
984
research, it is almost certain that it will be very difficult to find doctors who will give a great deal of time to that condition—at any rate, at this stage.
Your Lordships will sense my hope that you will push for more investigation, research and interest in the extraordinary conditions which make the brain fail. It is brain failure. We know that small clots are created in the circulation and that they can plug up the circulation to the brain so that people become demented. Perhaps I may say for the record that Alzheimer recorded the cases of four people who had dementia in early middle age—in their forties—which was most interesting. Those people were unusually young to have dementia. We talk about a generation of people over 85 all with Alzheimer's disease but they do not have what Alzheimer originally described. A purest such as me would say, "No, they have dementia". That does not attract quite so much attention because I think it is easier to spell dementia than it is to spell Alzheimer.
I believe that I will be making one of my points rather subtly if I point out that the present problem of providing money for the care of the elderly stems in part from the fact that people with dementia need long-term care. However, for people who have problems with their lungs, kidneys or heart there are short-term solutions which get them out of the hospital, leaving the warm bed for the next person who needs it.
It is also most important that we pursue a clearer understanding of the cause of many of the conditions that arise and bother elderly people. We know about tobacco and the connection with lung disease, but we are becoming fascinated with the wide prevalence of cancer of the prostate. We do not know why that epidemic is occurring but cancer of the prostate is fast becoming a major problem for the medical profession.
It is important that your Lordships appreciate my point that at present the service one ends up with is a lottery. We cannot make it an even chance that someone will end up in a hospital or a mental hospital. Until we can it will be for those who are able to design policies, financial ' arrangements and decisions about tax to solve the interim problem. Ultimately, we may be able to produce a steady kind of life which does not require long-term care. Of course, we must recognise that mobility in the joints and a weakening of the muscles are important factors which contribute to infirmity in old age.
My final remark must relate to my admiration for the elderly who have prevailed through life and who are victorious veterans. I was most interested in a demonstration that I saw in Hungary many years ago. A doctor there showed me a treatment which produced wonderfully fit elderly people. Eventually I discovered that one could not get into those homes unless one was 85. If one got to 85 and was admissible one was pretty fit. I was looking at the people who I should like to join and I shall bat as best as I can to get into one of those homes later.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whom I have known for many years. Indeed, I was once in love

985
with one of his daughters, but as she was only 13 it did not get very far. The noble Earl's remark reminded me of something that was said to me when I arrived in your Lordships' House. "Welcome", said the late Lord Bruce-Gardyne, "to the best appointed geriatric day centre in town". I very much endorse what the noble Earl said about the way we are looked after.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, not least upon his timing. He has chosen to debate the subject of long-term care only a few days after the Budget which has perhaps drawn more attention to the issues surrounding long-term care and the prospect of further measures to deal with some of the costs. That shows that he has the foresight of a Hebrew prophet. We admire him for it and thank him for allowing us to debate the subject today.
In line with the Griffiths Report and the resolution of the House, I must declare my interests. I am chairman of a life insurance company and of a National Health Service trust. I must also apologise to my noble friend because, for reasons which I have explained to him, I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
Last month I was privileged to chair at Ditchley a splendid weekend conference which discussed ageing populations in developed societies. Perhaps I may share some of the conclusions on which we were remarkably unanimous. Those attending the conference came from a range of different countries, professions and occupations and, I dare say, of different political complexions. Some of the conclusions are obvious. As has been said, we are living longer and as more of us become dependent there will be fewer people of working age to support us. That is the so-called dependency ratio. Interestingly, those at Ditchley did not regard the dependency ratio as in any way a demographic time bomb, as has sometimes been said.
We also recognised that the state never can, never has and probably never will meet all the needs from the cradle to the grave. There was a general assumption that we must learn to set aside more money if we are to avoid poverty in old age. But we must also recognise that being old is not being poor. On the contrary, a large number of elderly people are better off than were their age group a generation or more ago. Of course, there are many poor elderly people, but never let it be forgotten that, if they do not have assets or capital, the care that we are talking about, whether it be in the health service or provided by local authorities, is for them free. We need to bear that in mind and I endorse the comment of the right reverend Prelate that the standard of care now available in residential homes is very much higher.
The group at Ditchley also looked at the more positive things that are happening and which we need to recognise and respond to. One does not regard retirement as an event after which one goes down hill. It is not. Retirement is a process. As was said to me the other day, retirement is an attitude of mind, and some of the remarks made today bear that out.
Older people must be valued for their experience and wisdom. It is quite wrong that they should be marginalised. They must be encouraged to go on being
986
economically active. I believe that a trend has set in of always retiring older people prematurely because somehow it is thought that that is giving jobs to the young. There is no truth in the lump of labour theory that old people keep young people out of jobs. On the contrary, older people have a great deal of experience and wisdom which needs to be used.
Most older people wish to continue to be useful to society. They do not wish to be considered a burden on it. That theme recurred powerfully throughout our discussions. Society needs to accelerate and reinforce the trend in perceptions—not least because the perceptions of old people themselves—away from the notion that the years after customary retirement age are a time of decline and likely dependency. That notion diverges from the increasing reality as lifespans and health during them improves.
The relevance of all that to a debate in which we are looking at the problems of long-term care is very great. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that at whatever age one dies, whether it be 55 or 95, one's period of dependence is concentrated into the last three or four years of life. Therefore, the vast majority of elderly people live in the community with their families and neighbours for support and in many cases they are able to make a real contribution.
Age Concern has estimated that only 5 per cent. of the over–65s need long-term care other than in their own homes. The Alzheimer's Disease Society estimates that only 5 per cent. of dementia cases need NHS care. And yet the issue of long-term care has assumed, as has been said in the debate, considerable political importance in recent years.
There are a number of reasons for that. First, in absolute numbers there are many more cases of families who are affected. There are few people today who are untouched by any experience or anxiety on behalf of a frail elderly person who needs care. Secondly, it has been made clear yet again that the NHS is, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, concerned with medical care, but it is not part of its function to provide just social care. Thirdly, it is true and sad to say that relatively few people have been able to save enough to pay for long-term care for themselves without eating into their savings and, if necessary, selling their house, which causes much distress. Fourthly, while the NHS will pay for nursing care in hospital, in residential homes and for a patient in his own home, for some strange reason, it will not pay for nursing care when the client receives it in a nursing home. That is a point made very forcefully by the Royal College of Nursing.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree suggested that it may cost as much as £150 million to extend that. But perhaps the Minister can tell the House the cost of removing what seems to be an absurd anomaly, that one is entitled to nursing care—which after all, is a form of medical care—everywhere except in a nursing home.
The consequence of that is that more and more families find themselves having to pay for long-term care when they had assumed—and that is the basis of the anxiety—unwisely but understandably, that

987
somehow the National Health Service would provide. They are somewhat shocked when they find that it does not.
What shall we do about it? I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. It was a straight finding that we came to at Ditchley. There is a growing need to distinguish more clearly between the medicine of old age and that of acute healthcare. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to say that, on the whole, the medical profession has not been well structured in, for example, multi-disciplinary teams to reflect what is a very real distinction. Moreover, although geriatric care is now attracting a good research effort, there are still immense shortcomings in the distillation, co-ordination and dissemination of the fruits of that effort. We had a very distinguished geriatrician in the group who made that point with great eloquence. Structures of care are often over-rigid and are poorly matched to real need, to risk and opportunity, with the dependent elderly taking up acute care beds when their needs, including maximising the scope for rehabilitation, which is such an enormously important part of the process, could be served more economically and better by more extensive convalescent or nursing support provision.
That is a subject which the National Health Service must address. The Forest Healthcare Trust, which is an integrated trust, is trying to build improved bridges between acute treatment, rehabilitation, community support and primary healthcare. But I have no doubt whatever that there is a long way to go before we get it right.
My noble friend Lord Dean referred to the financial dichotomy between the NHS, which is free, and social care, which is means-tested. I believe that it is unrealistic to think that that will change in the short term. Therefore, solutions must be found to make it easier for more families to be able to pay for social care without feeling that they are eating into their inheritance.
That is why I warmly welcome the higher disregard limits in the Budget, which my noble friend listed at the beginning of the debate, and also the exemption from tax for certain insurance policy proceeds. I have no doubt that that will encourage more permanent health insurance and perhaps, in time, more long-stay insurance. But I am inclined to agree with the chairman of the Continuing Care Conference, Mr. Paul Seymour, who was quoted the other day as saying that those changes by themselves will not solve the problem. Like him, I am looking forward to the process of consultation which my right honourable friend the Chancellor has promised. Mr. Seymour was quoted in The Times last Saturday as saying:
"The major benefit is the consultation coming up … It's about making improvements for the future, not just for today. The Chancellor was perfectly right not to come up with an immediate answer".
There must be wide consultation with all the interests involved including, of course, the voluntary sector, the charitable sector as well as the commercial and public sectors.
Perhaps I may offer a few thoughts about what I should like to see. It is not realistic to expect millions of young people, perhaps just when their children are off their hands, to start taking out substantial insurance for their
988
own long-term care. There is something psychologically very difficult about that. Although there have been products on the market, very few have been sold so far, despite considerable efforts by the companies and by the Association of British Insurers to promote the concept.
Not only is it psychologically difficult, but the fact is that there is still a huge shortfall in the provision which people should be making for their own retirement. It is that which perhaps needs to be addressed primarily rather than trying to dream up new products for that long-term care process.
I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made this point. There must be more flexibility in pension schemes; not only in occupational pension schemes but also in personal pension plans. The House may not be aware that two years ago one insurance company, Lincoln National, announced a scheme whereby when the pension became payable, the beneficiary could take 90 per cent. of the pension as a pension and pay the 10 per cent. balance as a premium for long-term care. That was disallowed by the Inland Revenue because it broke the rules. That seemed to me to be absolutely absurd. If that is what the Inland Revenue rules say, then they need to be changed. That is only one example of what I believe should be done. In my view, such a scheme has real merits. I hope that that will be included in the consultations.
Another idea would be to allow pensioners to take a lower pension when they first retire. After all, many pensioners are happy to go on doing some part-time work and earning some money so as to maintain their standard of living. They may not need their full pension for, perhaps, 10 years or so after retirement. If they could, as it were, set aside or postpone a slice of their pension so that when they become wholly dependent a higher pension would be payable, I believe that that would go some way towards solving the problem.
There are also what have been called partnership schemes whereby if a policy-holder makes some provision for his own long-term care, that is matched ' either by higher disregards or by some other form of provision from the state. Indeed, there is a whole range of possibilities which now need to be examined objectively and sympathetically because we are facing a very real social problem.
Whatever avenue is explored, it is now clear that, in one way or another, our people need to save more if they are to provide adequately not only for ordinary retirement but also for the final years of dependence. There needs to be much more public debate and understanding in that respect. My noble friend Lord Dean can properly claim credit for having focused our attention on the matter today.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree has certainly raised an exceedingly important topical but, as I think one can gather from all that has been said so far, somewhat intractable matter in today's debate. I join others in thanking my noble friend for bringing it forward. I should like to tackle the debate primarily from a fairly narrow perspective: from the

989
point of view of one involved in the acute hospital sector as chairman of St. Mary's NHS Trust in central London. In that respect, I declare an interest.
There is no doubt whatever that the whole issue of long-term or continuing care generates major social, financial and political implications for this country. My noble friend Lord Dean mentioned the numbers that we were likely to have to cope with in old age in the years to come. But, in financial terms alone, the figures are really staggering. One recent article in the British Medical Journal (which, I believe, appeared on 9th September) predicted that as much as 10 per cent. of GNP may be required to meet the needs of domiciliary and institutional long-term care by the year 2030. That is really a frightening prospect for any country to face.
Unsurprisingly, the medical and surgical needs of an elderly patient can exceed the level that can be met in the community, even by the extensive support services that are now available. Where that is the case, a complex decision-making process is necessary to determine the best form of long-term placement. The choice is principally between a residential home, a nursing home or, as we have heard, a continuing care ward. Those alternatives have many implications both for individual patients and the providers of care—implications such as management, quality control, comparative cost and the source of funding.
There are clearly a number of difficult issues surrounding the area of quality control which will need to be addressed in any setting. However, there are no obvious fundamental barriers to the process of setting, monitoring and enforcing quality standards in any type of placement. The financial implications are—and are likely to remain—a major source of contention, but they cannot be brushed aside: they must be tackled. The selection of different placement options will determine the cost of long-term care, the source of funding (whether it is to be from the National Health Service or the local authority) and whether or not individual patients will need to be means-tested, or whatever, to determine their ability to pay for care themselves.
It is certainly very easy to understand why some patients—perhaps even their families—are, I have to say, to a greater or lesser extent in favour of staying in hospital in a continuing care ward as a means of preserving their ability to pass on an inheritance. As other speakers have said, that issue was at least partly addressed in the recent Budget in a way that I, too, warmly welcome. However, as my noble friend Lady Elles, pointed out, there are many further steps which need to be taken to sort out that particular issue.
The local levels of National Health Service continuing care provision are fixed within the purchaser-provider contracts to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester so clearly referred. The relevant local authorities can, therefore, be left in a situation where they may be asked to fund an inherently unpredictable number of residential and nursing home placements. If, as I fear is often the case, there are local deficiencies in either the
990
availability or funding of those different forms of long-term care, patients waiting for appropriate placement often accumulate in hospital acute and rehabilitation wards. If they do—and I am not for one moment suggesting that they do not need that sort of care—they can seriously compromise and undermine the other functions of those services, sometimes leading to the cancellation of surgery where beds for those cases are required. That is often compounded (and we certainly see evidence of this daily in St. Mary's at present) by a constant stream of seriously-ill admissions to the hospital and to those beds through accident and emergency.
I believe that I should mention at this point that, in carrying out our major role at St. Mary's as an acute hospital—and not have beds blocked by those who, perhaps, should be elsewhere leading to our consequent inability to provide planned surgery when it was intended—problems can arise due to the difficulty for community nursing services, social services and others to effect provision for suitably recovered elderly patients who could leave their hospital beds evenly over the week and go home, or wherever. I ascribe no particular blame—planned discharges of patients should not normally take place at the weekend—but the pressure is such that some means of helping alleviate the strain would be helpful. For example, I understand that there is a 48-hour standard wait from the time a decision is made to send a patient home to the provision of an ambulance if one is required. Therefore, a decision for a discharge to take effect on a Monday must be taken by the previous Thursday, because the weekend must be taken into account. That may not be a universal problem, but it certainly exists in some places and generates difficulties for all concerned, not least for the elderly who are in those beds.
I believe that there is an urgent and growing need to draw up guidelines of some sort for the process whereby different forms of long-term care are selected for a given patient. Those guidelines need to define, first, who is involved in the decision-making progress and, secondly—or, perhaps, in parallel—the criteria upon which those decisions are to be made or based. They can then be applied nationally, with the aim of facilitating the local assessment of both the quantity and cost of the long-term care that is required.
Such guidelines might also help eradicate the current practice whereby decisions with far-reaching financial and social consequences may at times be taken in a potentially arbitrary fashion by well-meaning, but not always so well informed, professional groups or individuals. That is by no means always the case, but good practice is not matched universally.
There are, inevitably, a number of thorny issues to be tackled in drawing up such guidelines. Some of them have been touched upon. There are the rights of individual patients and their relatives to determine the form of placement and thes roles of both hospital-based medical staff and primary care physicians, and others—as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding described just now—in the supervision of continuing care. As I said

991
earlier, there are the personal and political consequences of policies that may have a major impact on the principle of inheritance.
I have not mentioned continuing care in the community for those who could be treated at home, or elsewhere, in that regard, but this policy certainly ought to be included in any discussion on how to develop and refine the overall policies for the people we are addressing today. Community care is often seen as a viable alternative to institutional care. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, it has many advantages. However, it is a fact that experience has shown that comprehensive packages of home care which are likely to be necessary in some of these cases may be considerably more expensive than placement in a residential home, as some local authorities have already found. Like it or not, whatever the advantages or disadvantages of any particular course of action to suit people's needs, this is a problem from which we cannot easily hide.
I am aware that what I have said probably poses more questions than it attempts to answer. My noble friend Lord Jenkin suggested a number of other solutions, particularly as regards insurance. This aspect of care for the elderly is a fundamental and alarming issue which must be faced fairly and squarely. It has to be addressed and resolved by informed discussion between all the professional groups involved. Failure to face up to it and conduct a constructive debate can only lead to greater uncertainty for individuals, local authorities and those involved in the professional care of individuals. It can indeed have somewhat of a debilitating effect upon the acute hospital sector.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for initiating this important and timely debate. I also add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his 90th birthday. I hope that he will continue to have many years of good health to enable him to continue making such valuable contributions in this House.
I well remember my 30th birthday. At the time I had two small children, and a lovely Norwegian girl lived with us. She was just 18 and spent the whole day telling me how awful it was that I was so old. I also remember my mother who at the age of 92 talked of her elderly friends of whom there were still a few left. Whatever her age was, her elderly friends were always just a few years older. I have come to the conclusion—I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned this—that old age is a state of mind. Whether one is 30 or 92 what really matters is how fit one is both mentally and physically.
However, a statistic stays in my mind which is vitally important as we face the future. In 1951 there were in England 1.2 million people over 75. By the year 2000 it is estimated that there will be almost 4 million such people. We have to ensure that measures continue to be taken to maintain care and support for those who are unable to cope by themselves. It is not unusual for
992
someone who is reaching retirement age today to have one or even two parents still living. Only a few years ago that was practically unheard of.
I understand and applaud the Government's determination to maintain the value of the state pension which is after all the foundation of pensioners' income on retirement. It has been raised each year in line with prices, and other measures taken by successive Chancellors have kept pensioners' incomes ahead of the cost of living. That is a far cry from those dreadful days of the Labour government of the mid–1970s when, with inflation touching 27 per cent., the weak and the vulnerable, and particularly the old on fixed incomes, suffered. Many had retired believing that, with their savings, they could manage. What happened was that the evil of inflation overtook them and their living standards dropped like a stone. The present Government pledged that it should not happen again and until this day they continue to fight against inflation in the system.
Some say that inflation does not matter. They are often employees in work whose incomes rise as inflation rises or people on index-linked pensions. However, the reality is that jobs are priced out of the market, goods are too expensive, unemployment rises and those on fixed incomes carry the burden. The Government have encouraged people to make provision for retirement to support themselves, and it is heartening to know that 75 per cent. of pensioners have extra income from investments and two-thirds from occupational pensions. This has resulted in the incomes of average pensioners rising dramatically by over 50 per cent. after inflation.
However, as people become sick or frail, the time may come when some form of help is essential. I believe everyone wants to stay in their own home for as long as possible. For that reason I am a devotee of community care. The help required may be only minimal but it can make all the difference to someone living alone. I pay special tribute to charities such as Crossroads which do such sterling work in this area. Local authorities, through social services, are the main providers of assistance with dressing, providing meals on wheels, and generally keeping an eye on things. However, as time goes by, more help is often needed and the awful decision has to be made as to how long everyone can cope. I can speak from personal experience of going through the maze of options and weighing up the pros and cons of someone remaining at home or selling the home and moving to residential care. The effect on elderly people can be traumatic as they see life crumbling around them. I was therefore heartened when the Government in this current year gave generous funding of an additional £1.8 billion for community care responsibilities and up to a total of £3 billion by the year 1996–97. By that action the Government have fulfilled their commitment to the new policy.
It is essential that local authorities play their part and discharge their responsibilities wisely. They are free to decide their priorities. I feel that sometimes too much stress is placed on form filling and assessment and not on care itself, although proper assessment is of course vital. It is also vital that care is well managed. The individual's wishes should be of paramount importance.

993
Care should not be imposed against an individual's wishes. Flexibility is vital as families may be able to be, and may wish to be, the main carers provided they can have a break. However, in recent years there has been a feeling that one asks what the state will do and then the family top that up. I am sure it is not for lack of love that an attitude has developed that the state should provide. Of course, elderly people may live far from their children and there can be other reasons why relatives are not available on a daily basis. I recently visited Taiwan. I was most interested to learn that people in that country have the same responsibility for their parents as for their children. That is very different from the attitude of some people here.
Respite care is a provision for the stalwarts—usually family members—who are caring for others. I believe it is the least we can do. Although good practice among enlightened councils where respite care has always been available, such provision has been strengthened by the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act. The Act established that carers should be involved in the assessment process. Here I must pay tribute to Members of your Lordships' House who spoke so tenaciously and movingly for the measures in the Act.
As time progresses, people are living longer. We shall have a smaller workforce. The ratio of retired people to those working is changing dramatically. Fortunately in this country 15 million people are making provision for a pension to make their retirement more comfortable. In fact people are doing so to an extent greater not only than in any other European country but throughout the remainder of the European Union put together. Government encouragement is vital for people to make similar provision for long-term care. The Chancellor made significant changes in the Budget and no doubt the debate will continue long and hard.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that the latter years of elderly people are not spent in fear of financial problems. We all have a vested interest. The Government have brought the issue to the top of the agenda. I believe that they can be complimented and trusted on the action they have taken so that pensioners will not become an unbearable burden on future generations.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, with whom I share two interests, as a pensioner and upon having achieved three score years and ten. I should like to add my wishes for many happy returns of the day to the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
The words "long-term care of the elderly" are capable of a wide variety of interpretations. I hope that we shall not fall into the trap of thinking that anyone drawing a pension is necessarily elderly. In the early 1980s the director of social services in Essex showed a film of people who had entered our county council residential homes at 60 when they were still reasonably active. Having been there for some years, they became incapable of looking after themselves and would remain
994
in a home for the rest of their lives. As vice-chairman of the county council and chairman of finance at the time, the film had a profound effect upon me.
As several noble Lords have stated, most elderly people wish to remain for as long as possible in their own homes within easy reach of their long-term friends and neighbours. They may need sheltered accommodation, help with shopping, lifts to social events or just plain neighbourly calls. A chat over a cup of tea can establish that they are all right and that they have not had a fall or face some other problem.
I believe deeply in national investment in home help schemes. Apart from anything else, such a scheme is cost effective in avoiding residential care for as long as possible. Much more importantly, home helps can provide the assistance that people really need—whether it be house cleaning, shopping, the preparation of meals to ensure that elderly people keep well nourished, or to make sure that they light the gas fire to keep warm. In other words, it is to keep an eye on them and to help them remain independent in their own homes for as long as possible.
I remember too our director of social services telling me how useful a well trained, observant home help was in reporting back to the area organiser when one of his or her clients was experiencing deterioration in health and perhaps needed physical aids—banisters on stairs, hand rails along corridors, sticks, zimmers, handles and other equipment near the bath and lavatory, and the 101 other simple and more complex appliances which are now available to support independence. I am very much in favour of home helps. At the same time I believe that there should be a sliding scale of fees so that people like ourselves pay the full cost while those on benefit probably pay nothing or very little. In that way, councils will be able to make more home helps available within their budgets—in my view a most important policy.
The Chancellor's Budget last week will help those who finally have to go into long term care. About a third of those living to be over 85 will probably have to face that eventuality. I, like my noble friend Lord Dean, am glad that the Chancellor has more than trebled the minimum capital sum that people can keep before contributing to that care and doubled the sum below which they can apply for financial assistance for care. I am glad too that the Chancellor intends to prepare a consultation paper on partnership schemes, like some of those available in America. The idea is that those who plan ahead to meet perhaps the first three years of nursing care—that may, after all, be all they need—can then rely on the government to look after them for the rest of their lives. Like other noble Lords, I so agree on the need for respect, dignity and privacy in those homes.
I believe again that the Chancellor's possible scheme is both compassionate and cost effective. With all of us looking forward to longer and longer life spans, it is no good placing all the burden of cost, perhaps through taxes or directly, on our children and grandchildren at a very expensive time in their lives. We must make proper provision as far as possible during our working lives. I hope that that consultation process results in a scheme acceptable to both sides.

995
My Victorian grandmother had a profound influence on me as a child. She always worked hard and fed her family well. We loved her cooking and warm hospitality at Christmas. However, she was not extravagant and would never buy anything until she had saved up for it. She also believed in putting money away for a rainy day. In those pre-war days there was almost no inflation, so, as elderly people today benefit from the Government's low inflation policies, her savings retained their real value. I benefited from that prudence, inheriting a small income when she died at a ripe old age. I have to say that it was taxed to the hilt as unearned income in those socialist days. I certainly had not earned it, but, my goodness, my grandmother had, with a lifetime of hard work. I am glad that that position no longer applies. I am glad that the Chancellor, through the Budget, has brought in further fiscal incentives for saving. Coupled with the present low inflation rate, I hope that they will encourage people to save. I can testify personally to the comfort that a nest egg brings when you reach three score years and ten.
I hope that we shall not forget the voluntary sector, to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred—Help the Aged, Age Concern, Crossroads, WRVS Meals on Wheels, Darby and Joan Clubs, the hospices for palliative terminal care, to name but a few organisations. So many people selflessly give of their time and kindly consideration in making elderly people's lives more enjoyable or supportable. I share the admiration of my noble friend Lady Seccombe for those organisations. Many volunteers are themselves over 60. It is important for those retired from worthwhile jobs to feel that their lifetime skills are still needed so that they continue to contribute to society, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said. It is a tragedy to meet someone who, having held down a responsible job for years, feels totally unwanted on retirement and therefore deteriorates both mentally and physically as a result. Britain perhaps leads the world in the multiplicity of voluntary organisations which do such valuable work. The skills of the over-60s must be utilised to the full.
On a different point, maybe the lottery will help with larger capital sums but in many ways I believe that both central and local government can continue to encourage smaller voluntary organisations, both fiscally and through imaginatively placed grants.
In mentioning local voluntary associations, I must register particular gratitude to those who provide respite care, to the long and faithful, often unheralded carers in our society. Day after day, year after year, they look after their relatives. It can be a great burden. Day care in a county council occupational centre or short periods in residential care, either private or publicly provided, can give those carers a few hours or days. of precious freedom to live their own lives.
Mention has been made of Crossroads and the hospices. As unpaid patron, perhaps I should declare an interest. They provide the sort of respite care on a voluntary basis which is of great importance to carers in maintaining their own health and sanity and giving them some chance of independent enjoyment. Those organisations too deserve every support.
996
This is a very important subject. I am glad that the debate has produced so many practical and innovative ideas for future policy, both in the statutory and in the voluntary fields, in an expanding field of need. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will ensure that the Government follow up the debate with action in future.
4.52 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, another three months and I qualify as an old aged pensioner, so you may take it that I have a personal interest in long-term healthcare. Whether that
"affects the public perception of the way in which I carry out my parliamentary duties",
as set out in Clause 3 of the Registration of Interests, I leave to others wiser in these matters to decide. I wish today to talk only about the private sector; what happens now and what might happen in the future, given that the Government seem keen for the private sector to take on more of the burden of dealing with the cost of old age.
Before considering healthcare, let me start with pensions. In retrospect, how fortunate I was to have a high grade employer who required me, aged 21, to
join the company pension scheme. I did my 40 years and so I receive a full pension, but there are many who do not. Some start late and cannot amass enough contributions to retire on the full two-thirds of salary. Increasingly, many are retiring early, for reasons that are anything but voluntary and they do not achieve full pension rights either. Those in old age with inadequate pensions will have even more concern about long-term hospitalisation costs than those like myself who have retired on two-thirds of salary.
Then there are the widows, struggling to exist alone on 50 per cent. of the pension which was available before the husband died. Of course, there is often some private capital, but equally there is a great reluctance to risk it disappearing in medical fees when it ought to go to the children. I note from reading the brief supplied by Age Concern that the person who goes through the seven-year transfer of capital and later has no capital if, or indeed when, long-term hospitalisation fees are incurred, has committed the sin of deliberate deprivation. The ethics of that may be debatable, but the act itself would be unnecessary if we had the right type of long-term funding in place. Currently, in my view, we do not.
I turn to today's employees. Mine may indeed be the last generation to have a career of 40 years' full-time employment. Our children do not live in that world. They live in a world of self-employment and of part-time jobs. I do not know how to prove this, but my instinct says that that part of today's workforce which is between 20 and 30 years old is much less well funded for eventual private sector pensions than was the case with the same age group 10 years ago in 1985. I believe that earnings are so competitive now that the young may not have the surplus, nor do they have the will power, to fund their pensions in the way that historically was done for earlier generations by employers.

997
If we look at long-term medical care as a possible add-on cost—that is, some of us die without any medical costs—an add-on which comes on top of the routine cost of living as a pensioner, then today's poorly funded pension arrangements will aggravate the need for medical funding in some 30 years' time.
I turn to existing private medical insurance. In my view, the standard policy fails to give the consumer any long-term security at all. That is because terms are fixed on an annual basis and it is not possible for the elderly to change insurer due to the requirement for an existing medical condition exclusion by any new insurer. So I suggest that the whole basis is flawed and what is needed is a fund that is built up over time, prior to the arrival of medical conditions, and which is available if and when needed, to respond to significant pensioner medical costs.
In any group of pensioners, some will incur no costs from long-term healthcare, others will have heavy costs over time. But as a generality, at the date that a person becomes a pensioner no one in advance knows what costs he or she will incur. Insurance is one answer, but it is not the only answer. The Chancellor's decision to allow tax-free benefits from long-term care insurance is obviously extremely helpful but hopefully it will apply not just to insurance but also to long-term healthcare funds, whether insured or held by trustees on a self-insured or mutual basis.
Finally, since the Government intend to consult, I should like to offer headline details of two possible schemes which have been devised by colleagues. I was myself an insurance broker up to the end of 1991. The schemes were devised to enhance private sector long-term healthcare provision. Inevitably there will be some overlapping on what has been said by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding.
The first scheme recognises that there is not the money around to increase pension contributions in order to build up a healthcare fund. So it is suggested that the Inland Revenue should be asked to relax current requirements for approved occupational pension schemes and for individual personal pensions, so that on retirement individuals can select a lower immediate pension in return for a substantial supplementary increase in annual income in the event that they or their spouses need long-term care, either in nursing homes or in their own home. In addition, it might be possible to encourage individuals to make additional voluntary contributions towards such long-term healthcare, without further reduction of their retirement income. On this thought, pension funds or insurance companies that do not wish to provide this facility should be allowed to transfer funds to other approved providers.
However, for those who, for whatever reason, cannot turn part of a pension payment into medical provision, we have a different plan. We envisage an insurance policy taken out at retirement and paying up to a fixed limit in respect of defined long-term healthcare costs during the policyholder's lifetime. Monthly premiums would be fixed at the inception and they would be payable until healthcare costs are incurred. In the event
998
that the policy paid sufficient claims to exhaust the limit, then we propose that the following government relief to the policy holder should be offered. Instead of having to fund further care until his or her capital had reduced to the £16,000 newly allowed by the Chancellor, exemptions would start at £16,000 plus the policy limit now exhausted. Thus, if I can afford to pay private medical premiums sufficient to buy a £15,000 policy and I later become so incapacitated that all the £15,000 is spent on authorised costs, then the point at which the Government would start supporting me with further costs is reached when my free available capital has been reduced to the £16,000 plus the £15,000 from the policy, or £31,000. In this way we will be encouraging people to take out insurances and will be reducing the burden of elderly healthcare costs to the Government. We believe that many people, particularly those anxious to pass on capital to relatives after death, would find that idea motivating.
I suggest that both proposals meet the Government's objective of encouraging the private sector to carry more of the burden of old age at a time when there are only 25 per cent. of people in work to support the needs of the other 75 per cent.
5 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing this debate. As the noble Lord said in his introduction, this subject is vast. It covers almost every area of our daily lives. The contributions today covered various aspects of the problem. The majority dealt with pensions; therefore I do not intend to refer to them. I want to comment briefly on the kind of services that exist for the elderly in our society and on where I feel improvements could be made.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, stated, we can be absolutely certain that most elderly people would like to remain in their own home for as long as it is physically possible. It is interesting to note the fourth point in the Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations of the first report of the Health Committee; namely, the Department of Health and local authorities are urged to,
"ensure that preventative services remain a core responsibility of both health authorities and social services departments".
It is generally agreed that in all areas to do with health, prevention is better than cure. Much can be done to prevent an elderly person becoming dependent.
It is worth while looking at the submission to the Health Committee of the British Geriatrics Society. It suggests that savings of up £10 million in respect of each average group of 1,000 elderly people could be made if improved pre-admission assessment and more effective use of rehabilitation procedures were introduced. The society is of course supportive of the objectives of the 1990 community care legislation. It feels, however, that there have been inherent faults in the application of the Act; and also that, coupled with the NHS reforms, it has led to a reduction of available resources for rehabilitation within the NHS.
There is an urgent need to increase the effectiveness of pre-admission assessments, including specialist medical input. It is important to increase the facilities

999
and the number of hospital beds for more specialist rehabilitation. In addition, it is important to increase the involvement of general practitioners and primary care teams in multi-disciplinary assessment.
Nurses and physiotherapists have a great part to play in enabling the elderly to remain in their own home—if their services are called upon in time, before deterioration has set in. Improvements along these lines would save money; but far more important, they would create a happier old age for a large number in our population whose one desire, as was agreed by all who spoke today, is to stay in their own home if they can.
Informal carers are another group who should be involved in the assessment procedure. Many speakers referred to them. Without their co-operation, often at great personal sacrifice, the cost of care for the elderly would increase by an enormous sum of money. It is estimated that they save the health service and social services something like £32 billion a year. If we compare that with the fact that we spend only £9.1 billion on formal care in our society, it is impossible to underestimate the service that informal carers give to society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke about carers. It is obvious that in modern society the extent to which we can continue to rely on informal carers will inevitably diminish. That is not because they do not wish to be helpful any longer but because life has changed so enormously. Most women nowadays—women are usually the carers—work full-time and find it difficult to care for an ageing relative. Very often, those women are the main wage-earner in their family. It therefore becomes even more difficult for them to take on extra responsibility.
In addition, families have become much more segregated and split up. In the past people tended to live in the same community as the rest of the family. That is no longer the case. Children live on the other side of Britain, in Scotland or perhaps even abroad somewhere. Therefore there will not in future be the same number of people to provide the service that informal carers have given in the past. It is therefore of even greater importance that we concentrate on preventive care, thereby reducing the number of people in need of permanent support in old age.
In February 1995, the Department of Health issued guidelines on long-term care funding by the National Health Service. The guidelines had many good elements. For instance, health authorities were told to re-invest in long-term care services where they had withdrawn too far and reduced services below the danger level. Also individuals were given the right to appeal if they felt they had been unfairly denied access to the NHS. Those are very good points.
However, I also have regrets about omissions from the guidelines. Health authorities are still left to decide locally on the standard of care to which an individual is entitled under NHS funding. That creates a great lottery as to what sort of care a person may receive. It means a lack of continuity across the nation. Certain authorities will set far lower standards than others, and the chances
1000
of having care funded will be less. Where someone lives could make an enormous difference. I believe that entitlement should be based on national standards.
The department tells me that there cannot be national standards as such because every case is different. Nevertheless, there could be a set of standards against which each case could be considered. Decisions will have to be taken locally, but we should have a national set of standards.
Secondly, like many other noble Lords, I regret that there has been no proposal for separating the cost of nursing care from the cost of accommodation in nursing homes. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised that point. When free care is provided in both hospital and the community, it seems to me very unfair to charge for nursing care in a nursing home. After all, the National Health Service Act said that nursing care should be free at the time of need. So we regret that that has not happened.
Many noble Lords also raised the subject of the help given in the Budget to elderly people and pensioners. Of course, we are delighted that the threshold on the assets that a person can hold has been raised from £8,000 to £16,000.
I believe, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that tax relief on insurance will not help those people who desperately need it. To start with, a large number of them will have insufficient income to be able to benefit from the tax relief. I am also nervous about the large number of women who will be disadvantaged. They cannot take advantage of tax reliefs, because, first, they live longer and, secondly, they have had a broken working career and thus often have lower earnings. So the tax relief will not be so relevant to them. Those are the kind of issues on which the Government should concentrate.
The right reverend Prelate was upset that the political parties would not look at proposals for taxation to help ease the problem. I hope that he will exclude from that members of my party who voted against the 1p reduction in income tax—the only party to do so yesterday in the other place.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing the debate on this important subject this afternoon and particularly for choosing a subject which attracted the wise words of my noble friend Lord Longford.
I take this opportunity of wishing my noble friend a very happy 90th birthday—which he celebrated yesterday. I also thank him for the continuing support and help that he gives to younger and more inexperienced colleagues in this House. I have to say that sometimes he undermines the confidence of those younger and more inexperienced colleagues. He undermined mine this afternoon when he said that, as a mere assistant to William Beveridge, he would leave to me the consideration of the financial issues of long-term care. I am not sure that I accept that challenge. But I accept that this debate is very timely and enables us to

1001
look at both the new financial arrangements in the Budget which have been proposed for residential care and, in my view, the rather more significant report on long-term care from the Health Committee in another place, which was published in November, about three weeks ago.
That report raised broad questions about the boundaries between health and social care, to which several noble Lords referred this afternoon and which are at the heart of this policy debate. It has some precise and far-reaching recommendations for government action. I am a little surprised that it received so little attention in the debate this afternoon. I think I am right in saying that only the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has just spoken, looked at that report in any detail. I am sure that many noble Lords have read the report, and when I said "looked", I meant addressed in the course of this debate.
I should like to look first at the Budget proposals, which have received considerable attention this afternoon. It is perhaps worth emphasising, although the point has been made, that the proposals on care apply only to the minority of old people who need to be looked after in residential institutions. Let me quote from the Health Committee report and repeat the sentiments which have been widely expressed this afternoon: the emphasis should be on providing high quality services for people in their own homes, with institutional care—to quote the report—being "a last resort". Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to welcome the announcement that people who provide their own long-term care will be able to keep more of their savings. It is not surprising that the changes have been most welcomed by organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which works energetically for a group of people who will probably have no alternative but to accept some kind of residential care as their condition deteriorates.
But even though the level of assets below which people are eligible for assistance with care costs has been doubled to £16,000, that still does not seem to me to be a very generous figure when seen in the context of the value of a house, which usually constitutes the main bulk of a pensioner's savings. As noble Lords will know, the average house is now worth £67,000 and annual average care costs can total £15,000. The voluntary agencies calculate that about 40,000 homes are being sold annually to pay for care costs. I am afraid it seems likely that the tragic accounts that Age Concern, Help the Aged and many others have given of elderly husbands or wives becoming homeless after selling the family home to help pay for a partner's care will continue.
Those are not usually rich or privileged people. Indeed, several local authorities have pointed out that some were the proud purchasers of their council houses a decade ago. I am bound to say that the cynics have now sometimes said that the slogan should have been, "Buy your council house now and pay for your care later".
1002
The cost to local authorities must also be properly calculated before we become too enthusiastic about the impact of the rise in individual capital thresholds. The Department of Health has announced that it will give a £60 million special grant to local authorities to help them meet those costs. That is for the United Kingdom as a whole. But the local authority associations have already done their sums and calculated that the costs to the English local authorities alone, let alone those in the other parts of the United Kingdom, could be in the order of £70 million or £90 million in the financial year 1996–97.
That gap will have to be made up somehow. A letter in last Thursday's Financial Times from two authoritative actuaries pointed out that the change in asset limits may well add up to 14 per cent. to local authority costs and could lead eventually to higher council taxes. In the short term, it seems likely that local authorities will juggle their budgets, probably at the expense of the community care budgets—the budgets for domiciliary and daycare services—precisely undermining the policy objective (which was reinforced by all those who have spoken this afternoon and is supported by all those with professional responsibility in the field) of enabling people to stay in their own homes whenever that is possible.
If elderly people are to be enabled to be cared for in their own homes, the central issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, said when he opened the debate, becomes: who pays for what and who does what? The boundary between healthcare—healthcare being free at the point of need—and means-tested social care has become hopelessly blurred. Several noble Lords have given illustrations of that confusion. Local agencies have been allowed to "cost-shunt", so that many old people feel betrayed by a system which promised them free care from the cradle to the grave.
We are unlikely to unravel the complex issues involved in that question in this short debate. That has been reflected in many noble Lords' contributions. But there are some relevant facts of which we need to take account. As I said at the beginning, the Health Committee has made recommendations on which it would be helpful to hear the Minister's response this afternoon.
First, there is the perennial issue of NHS continuing care beds. In the past four years the number of such beds has dropped dramatically from 73,000 to 59,000. In theory, that should be a good sign, if there were appropriate care in the community. But the lack of domiciliary support and the fear of being means-tested for what people regard in common sense terms as health services provided in the community means many old people resist being discharged from hospital. There is also widespread evidence that their doctors are reluctant to discharge them, although they are not in need of acute medical attention. For example, today I was told that at the Lewisham Hospital in South London between 40 and 60 beds out of a total of 480 are what is described as "blocked" by patients awaiting discharge but for whom no alternative NHS care is available. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this afternoon drew attention to the specific problems at St. Mary's in West London.

1003
Almost exactly a year ago we discussed in this House the whole question of financing long-term care in a debate introduced on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Ashley. In that debate we on these Benches urged the Government to circulate clear instructions to all local health service purchasers and providers in regard to their responsibilities to provide continuing care. At that time a Department of Health draft circular was being reconsidered. It gave rise to fierce criticism when it was first issued and reappeared, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, told your Lordships, as a final, much-improved document, in February. But it still does not lay down national eligibility criteria for NHS care—a point emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
Ministers argue that individual needs must have pre-eminence over the attempt to draw up national standards. I am glad that the all-party Select Committee challenged that argument, noting in its report that the final Department of Health circular did call for consistency of local eligibility criteria. The committee went on to say,
"If it is not feasible to set national criteria because individual needs vary, then logically it cannot be feasible to set local criteria either, because individual needs will also vary in that locality".
I hope that the Minister will respond to that argument as set out in the debate in another place. The Select Committee went on to make positive recommendations in paragraph 11 of its final report where it said,
"on the grounds of equity, we believe that the nationally set framework should include the eligibility criteria for long-term care to define what the NHS, as a national"—
"national" is emphasized—
"service, will always provide and to set priorities for all other areas of long-term health care".
The committee went on to make another important recommendation at paragraph 14, where it stated,
"We also recommend that the DoH should introduce a national Long-Term Care Charter which specifies the minimum levels of provision that people can expect from health authorities, NHS trusts, GP fundholders and local authorities … In doing so we echo the call we made … for the development of a national Community Care Charter.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us at least a preliminary response to those recommendations in his reply. Unless those recommendations are adopted, the overall picture of long-term care for the elderly in this country will continue to be patchy and will continue to be one of confusion and chance—a lottery in which what you receive depends on where you live and not on what you need.
In September this year Age Concern published a survey of the attitudes and anxieties of older people on long-term care. Frankly, it does not make comfortable reading. A large number of correspondents felt let down by the health services. One man sent a copy of a letter he had written to the Secretary of State for Health saying,
"you and your predecessors entered into a contract with me (and millions of others) 50 years ago to provide the necessary care and I have paid my full Natio,ial Insurance contribution since. Surely you cannot just opt out? Do you not have a legal as well as a moral obligation?"
1004
We all have a moral and a legal obligation. I urge the Government to try to allay the fears of elderly people by accepting and implementing the recommendations of the Health Select Committee in another place. Only if we are all confident that our access is based on our needs, not on where we live or on what we can afford, will we all, whatever age we may be today, have security of mind about long-term care.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for raising this important subject and allowing us to debate it this afternoon. I am much more grateful that the debate this afternoon is not going on quite as long as last Wednesday afternoon's debate and the Statements managed to do—long after everybody had programmed their departure. Indeed, some noble Lords had to leave before the end simply because they had added five hours to three o'clock and logically reached eight o'clock, but had not allowed for two Statements. We have not had that problem this afternoon and I am grateful for that.
This has been a thoughtful debate. I am delighted to join my colleagues in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his 90th birthday. As I believe I said the last time he spoke in a debate in which I summed up, I find his speeches amazing to listen to, partly because of his remembrance of events in his long life and his ability to do it without reading copious notes, and partly because he makes his points both humorously and tellingly. Today was no exception. I hope to be here, preferably at this Dispatch Box, to congratulate him on his 100th birthday.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. But I must not take credit for something that is not a virtue. I am now partially sighted and I am a patron of the Partially Sighted Society, so I cannot use notes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl reminds me of something that perhaps I should not tell your Lordships. One of my colleagues, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has never used notes in his speeches and became extremely upset when those interesting devices—teleprompters—came on the scene. His colleagues started to make speeches which appeared to be without notes when in fact they were using the teleprompter. He tried to find a way round that to ensure that his point was made, and the teleprompters are always removed when he speaks. I therefore appreciate the noble Earl's intervention.
One of the important points made by the noble Earl, which I wrote down and underlined, was "respectful help". He made it in his usual pleasant and jocular way, but it was a telling point. Bluntly put—he did not say. this—it is the difference between not helping at all and over-helping; that is, assuming that everybody over 65 is decrepit and needs all the help everybody else can give them. Although I have not reached the age of 65, I have friends who have and they do not seem to require or even wish my

1005
help, except in the case of two of them when it comes to netting the salmon that they have managed to catch (I want their help the other way round on the rare occasion that that happens).
The noble Earl made that point and it is well worth emphasising in my summing-up. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and my noble friend Lady Elles spoke of the need to make people feel that they belong and are part of the community; the need to talk with them and involve them in activities. That is vitally important, but it is not something which the Government can do. It is something we should all be doing and encouraging others to do.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe and others spoke of old age as being a state of mind and mentioned how her mother discussed her "elderly" friends. It is not long since my wife's aunt, who I believe is 92, baked scones and organised tea parties for the "old folk", as she called them. The fact was that all the "old folk" were younger than she. I suspect that that attitude is part of the reason she is still with us at 92.
Either the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said that we should practise for old age when we are younger by sensible dieting, taking exercise and taking part in activities. No one mentioned this, but it is sad when someone retires and finds that he has no other interests outside the job which he has left. That is perhaps where practice for retirement can help.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and my noble friend Lord Chelmsford underlined the need for good pension provision. Not much was said in our debate about pensions and that is perhaps because—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in her place—we exhausted that subject last Session when we dealt with the Pensions Bill. However, I very much hope that the Pensions Act will help to underline the need for good pension provision. I say to my noble friends that we are undertaking a large campaign of information to the world at large and targeting it at younger people on the back of the Pensions Act to bring to their attention the possibilities that are there and the importance of starting to make pension provision at a young age.
The main part of this debate is perhaps about the boundary between healthcare and social and residential care. It may help if I say a few words about the history of these events. Ever since the creation of the welfare state in 1948 there has been a division in responsibility between the National Health Service on the one hand and local authority central services on the other for meeting the needs of people who require long-term support. Some people need the medical and nursing expertise and the specialist care that only the National Health Service can provide; others need support and help with everyday activities, which, depending on the extent of the person's incapacity, can be provided either in a residential setting or in the person's own home.
This distinction, ever since 1948, has marked the division between care which is free at the point of delivery under the NHS, and social services care, for which local authorities may, and regularly do, seek
1006
contributions towards the cost from people who can afford it. It is hardly surprising that people are sensitive about this boundary between "health" and "social" care; but it should, I think, be appreciated that it is not anything new and is a recognised feature of our system. While it is sometimes difficult to define, it has been recognised by those who are responsible for planning, purchasing and delivering care. It has been recognised by governments of both parties since 1948 and by other commentators, including, notably—if I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington—last year, the Borrie Commission on Social Justice. It said:
"Although the dividing lines between treatment and care can be difficult to agree, the distinction offers the basis for a clearer approach to funding. Given the many demands on resources, however, it is not feasible to extend the founding principle of the NHS, that treatment should be free at the point of use, to the comprehensive provision of care and help with everyday activities".
We have had a reasonably non-party political debate so I do not want to ask the noble Baroness whether that remains the position of the party opposite and it has accepted what the Borne Commission has said or whether it is part of thinking the unthinkable on which Mr. Smith and his colleagues have set out. But that is what the Borrie Commission said. I believe that most, if not all, noble Lords will agree that there is a distinction and that it is a distinction which, whether we like it or not, we have to maintain.
The boundary is not a static feature but shifts over time, especially with the continual advances in medical science and social changes. In 1948, people were consigned to indefinite periods in hospital who would now receive rehabilitation and be discharged home to carry on with their lives, with perhaps some support from social services. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle underlined that point when she mentioned the film she had watched which illustrated the point that in years past people were taken into residential hospital care and were left there for many years. They then became so institutionalised that they could not possibly have lived on their own even when the geriatricians and others got round to thinking in a different frame of mind and tried to see whether they could rehabilitate them into the community. I am happy to say that those days are past and I am sure that we are all determined, whatever our party, that they should not return. It is a matter for celebration that the NHS can do a great deal more now than it used to be able to do to help people to remain in their own homes. I shall return to that issue in a moment because a number of speakers made some very interesting points about it.
There have been great improvements in treatments to remedy conditions which a few years ago would have been crippling and which meant that it would have been impossible for people to stay at home. Better anaesthetic techniques mean that operations can be carried out on people at quite advanced ages, as we all saw just a couple of weeks ago when the Queen Mother underwent her operation. We were all delighted to see her coming out of hospital and showing everyone else—all the. other old folk, just like my old aunt—that, if one has some spirit about, age can be put aside. That is a good example to everyone of what can be done. Indeed, I suspect that a few of your Lordships are going around

1007
with artificial hips and various other things. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, described to us how he has been helped by some of his medical colleagues with the little pump inside his chest.
So it is hardly surprising if, as a result of all these medical advances, people who would once have needed hospital-based care can now manage at home, perhaps with some support; or, if they are too frail for that to be a realistic option, can enter residential or nursing home care in a comfortable, homely environment. The 1980s have seen a great expansion in the independent residential and nursing home sector as the availability of social security money made it easier for frail elderly people to enter a residential or nursing home. Beds for people 65 and over in private nursing homes increased by more than 500 per cent. between 1983 and 1993.
As I said a moment ago, hospitals should not be, and should never have been, people's homes. Residential or nursing home care can provide a homely and comfortable environment superior to the standards obtaining in some of the old and totally unsuitable "geriatric wards" which the NHS had, especially during the 1980s.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin underlined the need for research into matters which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, described so well for the non-scientists among us as brain failure. One speaker mentioned that the number of consultant geriatricians has increased by about 81 per cent. since 1979. On the subject of research, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that the Department of Health is developing a mental health research strategy which will include research into dementia. Almost all the speakers in the debate talked about the need for good assessment and rehabilitation, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, being one of the last ones to do so. I agree with her on that, as do the Government.
I turn to the community care reforms of April 1993. They continued and strengthened the drive away from institutional care and the development of community and domiciliary based services. We have provided generous funding for this work. Local authorities are responsible for assessing needs for residential and nursing home care and for providing the necessary financial assistance, with the resources we have allocated to match these new responsibilities. Over all, in 1995–96 local authorities received an extra £1.8 billion for community care. By the end of 1996–97 local authorities will have been given an additional £2.2 billion—a considerable injection of resources at a time of considerable budgetary restraint. We plan to inject a further £350 million in 1998–99, demonstrating our long-term commitment to the success of community care. By the end of that financial year more than £2.9 billion extra will have been put into community care.
Elderly and vulnerable people are now being offered more appropriate support to enable them to stay in their homes wherever possible, and are getting more choice, better support and services tailored to their individual needs. Domiciliary services are on the increase. During
1008
1994 local authorities provided 24 per cent. more home help or home care contact hours than in 1993, and day centre places rose by 19 per cent.
Perhaps I may turn to the guidance on NHS responsibility for meeting continuing care needs, mentioned by a number of speakers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, certainly mentioned it, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. The community care reforms have proved very successful in promoting and emphasising non-institutional forms of care. However, it is true that the role of the NHS in providing continuing care for those with greater dependency does require clarification. In February of this year the Department of Health issued some very important guidance to the NHS and to local authorities on the responsibilities of the NHS for meeting continuing healthcare needs. I hope that what I am going to say on this subject will go some way towards answering the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree and the BMA Alzheimer's Disease Society in its submissions to him.
First, this guidance confirms and clarifies the responsibilities of the NHS for meeting a range of continuing healthcare needs, including the capacity to secure continuing in-patient care, whether in an NHS hospital or funded by the NHS in an independent sector facility. Secondly, it requires authorities to take action to fill any significant gaps in their current services, in their area of course. It aims to achieve greater consistency across the country in the provision of continuing health care by a national framework, which sets out what the NHS should be doing to meet continuing healthcare needs. This is probably as much as has ever been said in one place about the scope of the NHS responsibilities in this area.
The framework gives a strong steer on when people should receive NHS continuing in-patient care; for example, if the level or nature of their condition requires on-going and regular supervision from specialist doctors or nurses, or if their condition is very unpredictable. While individual health authorities, doctors and nurses need some freedom to interpret this framework in the light of local circumstances, we are expecting all health authorities to reflect these core conditions in their eligibility criteria.
The guidance also focuses on the need to improve arrangements for hospital discharge of people who have continuing health or social care needs. I believe that that was a point made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. It ensures also that there will be a greater openness about continuing healthcare services. Health authorities' policies and criteria must be open for consultation locally with all groups with an interest, including in particular local authorities with whom the policies and criteria should be agreed, and with patients' representatives. The final policies and criteria are to be published in community care plans.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, talked about the range of services provided by the NHS. I believe that my noble friend described it as from the medicine of old age to the medicine of health care; the one being more appropriate to care outside hospital and the other in

1009
hospital. A very important feature of the work we are doing on continuing healthcare is looking at the range of services which we wish to see developed. While in-patient beds are a key part of an authority's pattern of service, we are stressing that they must make plans for rehabilitation, recovery after illness, respite care, palliative care for people who are terminally ill and specialist services to people in residential or nursing homes, community health services and specialist transport. Hospital discharge arrangements are to be given high priority to ensure that all the necessary services are in place. Overall, the focus is on getting people back into the community wherever possible and on making placements based on proper assessment, and consultation with the patient and his or her family. We do not want to see a return to the old and outdated models of care such as the old-style geriatric wards.
One of the real problems faced by many parts of the health service has been called, when I was the Health Minister in Scotland, "blocked beds". My noble friend who succeeded me as Health Minister mentioned this problem, which is nationwide. We very much hope that these kinds of ideas and guidance will help reduce, if not eliminate, that problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, suggested to me that we should have used the opportunity presented by the issue of this guidance to impose national criteria for continuing healthcare services. I hope I have outlined that we are aiming for broad consistency. I believe that it would not be either feasible or desirable to require authorities to provide precisely the same patterns of continuing care services. Existing services vary considerably depending on the facilities which are available locally. In some areas services have been centred around old long-stay hospitals, while in others such a facility has never existed. In some areas the independent sector is well developed and in others it is less strong.
Finally, health authorities and local authorities need to have the flexibility to agree locally the precise boundary between their respective responsibilities, so that they can work together to meet the needs in as seamless a manner as possible. Detailed national prescriptions of exactly what should be provided by whom may sound attractive, but we believe that it would be unlikely to be helpful in reality. We are committed to making sure—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Does what he has just said, in response to my remarks and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, indicate that the Government will reject the recommendation of the Select Committee on Health of another place which called for that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness knows that we do not normally say how we are going to respond to the select committee before we have done so. I am not going to be drawn down that road. I am trying to outline, in as fairly an open and straightforward way as I normally try to do, my response to the points made by the two noble
1010
Baronesses. I hope that she will not ask me to go too much further. That is our thinking at the moment, but we have to look at the whole report from the select committee before we give our considered view.
We are committed to making sure that this guidance is put into practice. I believe that that is demonstrated by the fact that implementation is one of the six key priorities for the NHS in 1996–97. The NHS Executive is making sure that the requirements of the guidance are fully met, and will be carrying out further monitoring from April next year as eligibility criteria for continuing healthcare services are put into operation.
The work the Department of Health is doing to implement the guidance on continuing health care is one strand of our action to deal with the problems associated with long-term care, which were raised by every noble Lord and all the noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate.
I turn now to the position of people who need long-term care in a residential setting, but who do not need the specialist care the NHS provides. There have been concerns expressed by and on behalf of individuals who felt that the rules on charging for such care have operated unfairly. The Government have listened sympathetically to those views. One such concern was expressed by many of your Lordships during the passage of the Pensions Bill. That was that local authorities were not using their discretionary powers to ensure that spouses of people who entered residential care could receive part of an occupational pension paid to the resident. As a result, earlier this year we announced that from April 1996 local authorities will be able to take into account only one-half of a married resident's occupational pension, so that the remainder may be used to support a spouse still living at home. That, I believe, overcomes the fears put to me rather graphically in your Lordships' House—I believe by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, with a turn of phrase for which she is noted—that for a spouse left at home it would be better if the husband had died leaving her with her' 50 per cent. widow's pension rather than go into a home and have it all taken away. I hope that we have responded positively to that.
As your Lordships know, we have now decided to increase the current lower and upper capital limits in the local authority charging system for residential care and nursing homes and for income support payable to people in homes. Currently, as your Lordships know, the lower limit is £3,000 and any capital up to that level is ignored. The current upper limit is £8,000 and anyone in residential care who has capital above that level will not receive any help with costs. Between £3,000 and £8,000 there is a sliding scale of tariff income taken into account.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the current limits are far too low and that we want to help people who have saved and worked all their lives. The lower limit will be more than trebled from £3,000 to £10,000 and the upper limit doubled from £8,000 to £16,000. These changes will take place by next April. I am pleased that we have been able to provide this extra help for people in residential care and

1011
nursing homes. It is a much more generous treatment of capital than other aspects of the income support system and is good news for the elderly and other vulnerable people who have had to make significant contributions out of very limited capital for care home charges. I do not want to go into the arguments in favour of having these distinctions and some degree of charging. I believe that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, governments since 1948 have accepted this dividing line. Indeed, the Borrie Report, commissioned by the party opposite, accepted it, which suggests that it is something which has fairly wide acceptance.
This is a difficult issue, but I do not think that people who are reasonably well off can look to other people who are not well off to help them, through their taxes, to pay for residential care simply in order to protect their money and to allow them to pass it on. That is not an easy thing to say, but it is one of the hard issues that those of us who have to make difficult political decisions simply have to face. We decided to make those changes and the changes announced earlier this year to the treatment of occupational pensions after listening to the real concerns of elderly people. I very much hope that what we have done will be as widely welcomed outside the House as it has been welcomed in the House this afternoon.
We hear a lot about the potential impact—some would say the "threat", although I do not agree with that—of the increasing number of older people in our society. As my noble friend Lord Dean said when introducing the debate, it is true that over the next 20 years there is projected to be a 20 per cent. increase in the number of people aged 75 and over, and a 44 per cent. increase in the number over 85. That is where we find the big recruitment group for residential care. However, we should be careful not to assume that older age necessarily brings dependency and disability. Many people remain fit and active into their eighties and nineties or even beyond and this trend seems likely to continue in the light of progress in medical and pharmaceutical science, preventive measures and health education. The Department of Health is looking carefully at the results of research into healthy active life expectancy—the extent to which extra years of life are, or can be, free of disability. An expert group has been set up to consider this important question.
The Government are doing everything possible to promote good health. I refer, for example, to the Health of the Nation. We are trying to find ways to persuade people to change their lifestyles in order to reduce the incidence of strokes, heart disease, cancers, mental illness and accidents, all of which are relevant to the good health of older people. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, the biology of the human being is such that disabling conditions increase with age. Despite all the cleverness of medical science, long-term care will be needed for the foreseeable future for a significant number of elderly people.
I have mentioned the imminent changes to the rules for treatment of income from occupational pensions and the substantial increases to the capital limits for people who enter residential care. That is aimed at the short
1012
term, but we need to go beyond and look at the long-term position. I have already spoken about the challenge of demographic changes.
I should like to round off my contribution—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Thank you very much—by looking into the future a little. The Chancellor announced in another place a range of proposals to encourage people to make provision for long-term care. The first is to exempt from tax the benefits from a range of insurance policies which provide for long-term care. This is, of course, on top of the recent decision to exempt from VAT certain forms of care provided in someone's own home. I was delighted with the welcome that those moves received from those of your Lordships who mentioned them today.
Secondly, in consultation with the financial services industry, we will be studying the experience of partnership schemes in the United States. My honourable friend, Oliver Heald, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, recently returned from a fact finding mission to look at schemes in New York and Connecticut. The essence of the schemes is that individuals who plan ahead to meet a proportion of long-term care costs themselves are able to retain some of their assets above the £16,000 capital threshold. My noble friend Lord Chelmsford suggested such a scheme, without mentioning Connecticut.
Thirdly, in consultation with pensions representative bodies we shall be looking at the possibility of changing the tax rules to extend to members of occupational pension schemes the option to take a variable pension. That could provide a larger pension in later years when people are more likely to need long-term care in exchange for a smaller pension earlier on. My noble friends Lord Chelmsford and Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned that and pointed out that the Inland Revenue rules may require to be changed.
I hope that I have not gone on for too long, but I believe that we have had an important debate and that it was worth saying a few things which needed to be said to illustrate the Government's position. I am sure that many of our proposals are accepted by all noble Lords, but I know that there is some concern about certain areas in which the Government have had to take serious decisions about the way in which we should move in the future. I believe that we have made our position clear and that, for a variety of reasons which are both medical and social, we are now giving our old folk a very much better standard of living and way of life than was ever the case in the past. I very much hope that we can continue to do that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean, and to all noble Lords who have spoken, for giving us the opportunity to have this important discussion today.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting and constructive debate. It has been greatly

1013
enriched by the deep knowledge and experience of all those who have spoken. My only regret is that we have had very few contributions from the Back Benches of the official Opposition where I am sure that there is great knowledge and interest in the subject.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for listening to all the speeches throughout the debate and for his usual courtesy in answering all the points that have been made with considerable thoroughness, laced with his special brand of Scottish humour. I am sure that your Lordships will want to return to this important subject at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
5.56 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It may be helpful if I say a word first about the procedure for dealing with this Bill. Noble Lords will have noticed on the Order Paper that an amendment may be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The noble and learned Lord is seeking to commit the Bill to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, but in order that it may be committed to a Select Committee I must first obtain its Second Reading tonight. Therefore, I shall not pursue the debate in its usual terms but simply argue that this is a matter of sufficient importance and concern to warrant a Select Committee looking at the subject. Noble Lords who feel strongly about the matter one way or the other will, I hope, agree that it is of some importance and that a Select Committee is necessary. In order to achieve that end, I must have the approval of the House with regard to the Bill's Second Reading.
The Bill has a long history. I have pursued this matter over a number of years. It was originally introduced to the House by Lady Summerskill in 1962. I have had discussions on this Bill in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions since. On each occasion I was knocked out in the first round, as someone has said, and I did not succeed in gaining the Bill its Second Reading. That is a most unusual occurrence in your Lordships' House. I have always felt that a Second Reading could be justified as this is a matter of public concern. However, I hope that tonight, because of the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, we shall succeed in gaining the Bill its Second Reading.
There is no doubt that it is a matter of some concern and of some interest to the public. There is a substantial number of programmes on the subject on TV and radio. The public are interested in the matter. There is of course the special interest of the BMA. I speak with its full support in alerting the public to the dangers of professional boxing. In the Bill I am not dealing with amateur boxing, boys' clubs and that kind of
1014
three-rounders where no substantial injury is inflicted; I am dealing with professional boxing. Some people may say, "It is not a very well drafted Bill". I admit that that is the case. It has weaknesses, but they can be dealt with in the kind of committee suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
I have returned to the subject because of the events that took place in Glasgow just a few weeks ago when a young man was killed in the ring. Some of the enthusiastic supporters on both sides proceeded to throw chairs and glasses at one another in a form of riot. It was not an attractive scene. This young athlete was taken from the ring and subsequently died.
If one looks at the recent history of the ring, it is not an edifying experience. Michael Watson is now paralysed and in a wheelchair; Gerald McLellan is permanently paralysed; Bradley Stone died just over 18 months ago; and James Murray died a few weeks ago. There should be some concern about that kind of experience and record.
Society is concerned nowadays about violence and the proliferation of violence in our communities. I notice, and perhaps I may draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, a document which was provided to me about programme standards in the BBC. One of the terms that the BBC is asked to observe is the need for proper vigilance in the portrayal of violence. Why is that so? Why is that written into the BBC code? It is because we recognise that the portrayal of violence is something that should be controlled, limited and restricted in a civilised society.
The portrayal of violence is evident in the boxing ring. On the previous occasion when we discussed this matter, I referred to a fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald McLellan. Nigel Benn entered the ring and blazoned upon his wrapper were the words, "The Black Destroyer". The other man, interviewed before the fight, said, "I get a buzz every time I knock a man unconscious". If that is not evidence of violent behaviour I do not know what is. The impact of boxing on violence in society is one of the issues that might be looked at by a Select Committee.
I am interested also in a matter that will be dealt with at greater length by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Some of your Lordships may have read of a recent case in which a group of people met and inflicted bodily harm upon one another. They were masochists and evidently derived some sexual pleasure from that experience. The courts found—there was an appeal to the House of Lords—that it was a crime to inflict bodily harm on someone else even if that other person permitted and invited it.
The 1861 Act provides that:
"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously … wound or cause any grievous bodily harm",
shall commit an offence. The two people who are in the ring together are there by common consent. They have agreed to go in. What are they engaged in? They are engaged in a contest to inflict bodily harm on the opponent. The object is to knock a man unconscious. Surely that is a matter that might also be considered by the Select Committee.

1015
We have abolished certain activities in this country. We have abolished cock fighting, for example. We have abolished bare-knuckle fighting. We should look also at whether boxing is not equally reprehensible. There is a great concern in this country about animals and their welfare. We legislate to protect animals from punishment and dangers. We should be equally concerned about inflicting bodily harm on other human beings. There is a moral issue involved in this matter.
When we discussed this matter previously we were asked, "What about other sports? There are other sports such as rugby football, soccer, and so on, where people get hurt and damaged". But in no other sport is there an intention to inflict bodily harm. In rugby football and some of those other sports it is an accident. There are codes and rules designed to prevent the infliction of bodily harm or any accident. Boxing is the only sport in which the infliction of bodily harm is the purpose of the exercise.
Some people have said to me, "If you ban professional boxing, you will drive it underground". That is not a doctrine I can appreciate: you must not pass a law because someone will defy it. That is no justification. The profits of professional boxing come from public demonstrations of professional boxing and the TV coverage of professional boxing. To say that boxing will be driven underground and some people will break the law if you pass it is not a good reason for abstaining from passing the law. Someone else has said, "It inflicts discipline on young people. Young boys learn discipline from boxing in boys' clubs and so on". But there are many ways of learning the art of good discipline other than by perpetuating boxing.
Tonight we can enable the House to have a special look at the issue. We can do that by passing the Second Reading and accepting the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
6.09 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must declare an interest in that for more than 15 years I have been a member of the Executive Committee of the Staffordshire Association of Boys Clubs. That is an excellent body of people which provides money for clubs within Staffordshire in order to improve the facilities therein and to help boys from deprived areas, of which we have a number—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. The Bill does not deal with boys' clubs. It deals exclusively with professional boxing.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, the Bill has a bearing on boys' clubs. I was about to say that we derive the majority of our finance through our fund-raising activities. We put on sporting boxing matches with boys' clubs boxing against one another. Indeed, we have the Midlands Area
1016
Championships at which people provide us with profits by paying for tables. Therefore, the activity is profit-making and falls within the remit of the Bill.
I do not propose to speak at great length on the Bill before your Lordships tonight. All the ground has been covered; namely, on 4th December 1991 (col. 290 of the Official Report) and more recently on 5th April of this year when my noble friend Lord Oxfuird managed to persuade your Lordships to refuse the then Bill a Second Reading (col. 288). It seems to me that, except for the date, the wording of the Bill has not changed since 1991, yet here we are again debating the same issue.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on his determination and tenacity in bringing this Bill before your Lordships again. I assure your Lordships that I am the first to acknowledge that, if he fails tonight, it will not be long before the Bill is back before us. I know that he will continue with the issue until such time as he receives satisfaction. I am sure that that is admirable.
Boxing is a major sport and it is followed by millions of enthusiasts the world over. Of course, it is a contact sport which by its very nature carries serious risks to the participants. But so do all contact sports. Many sports which are not classed as contact sports involve serious risks too. Perhaps I may give the examples of horse-racing and motor racing, to name but two. It must be said that boxing is most certainly not the highest risk sport in terms of the number of people injured.
Boxing, both amateur and professional, is a better regulated sport than it ever has been. Boxing in the United Kingdom is by far the best regulated boxing in the world. We should be proud of that. In the light of recent tragedies in the ring—and they have been awful—the authorities which regulate the sport in the United Kingdom have tightened their rules even further and will continue to do so. I speak with no knowledge of the authorities. No one from the authorities has contacted me and I certainly have not contacted anyone.. I speak entirely as a boxing enthusiast.
Boxing enthusiasts—and I have said that I am one—have every sympathy with the families who have suffered loved ones being either maimed or fatally injured in pursuit of their professional career in the ring and, indeed, in the amateur game in pursuit of excellence in the sport of their choice. That is most important. Such awful injuries seldom occur, but when they do they hit the headlines because boxing is a controversial sport and controversy sells newspapers.
Nobody is forced to take part in boxing or in any other sport of which I know. It is a matter of complete choice for the individual. It is only at the very top of the sport that huge purses exist. Personally, I object to such enormous pay-days, with many hangers-on creaming off the top layer of the money. Many professional boxers box two or three times a week all over the country, providing after-dinner entertainment at sporting clubs and many other places. They earn very little indeed. They do it because they want to.
Such financial incentives at the top of the tree are a fact of life these days in almost every sport that has a professional side. Whether we like it or not, sport is

1017
followed by vast numbers of people. With modem methods of bringing televised sport into every living room in the land, the money stakes become larger still on a daily basis. I find that pretty horrendous but it is a fact of life.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, completely refutes the argument that, if banned, the sport would go underground. But it already is underground and has been for years. The noble Lord gave the example of cock fighting. That is completely illegal, and so it should be. It is a vile sport, but it takes place. If we do not live in the real world we do not see such things. But it does happen.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that there is unregulated boxing in this country today. It most certainly will go underground if banned and I am sure that your Lordships would not wish those circumstances to occur with no regulation whatever and much higher risks of very serious injuries occurring without any medical assistance. That would be a very large burden for your Lordships to carry on their consciences.
What about the amateur game? There, tournaments are put on to raise large amounts of money for charitable purposes. I have already mentioned the Staffordshire Association of Boys Clubs, and that is affiliated to the national association. It provides sporting and club facilities for lads from truly deprived areas. We found that the only good way of raising substantial funds was by putting on boxing evenings. People pay to go and they are delighted to be there. Such games have a great following and are extremely well regulated too. However, under the Bill anyone who raised funds in such a way would be classed as making a profit out of boxing and the organisers would be liable for prosecution. That cannot be right.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the fact that boxers participate of their own free will, knowing full well all the risks attached. All sportsmen do. I was a very, very, very bad amateur jockey. I hate to tell your Lordships that in my first season I had 36 rides, during which I had 34 falls, one horse pulled up and one refused. That is not a good record to have. I hurt myself on numerous occasions and eventually I retired 20 years later having had only two winners. Your Lordships would never have bet on me. But I thoroughly enjoyed what I did. No one forced me into it and I made no money out of it whatever. It was something that I wanted to do of my own free choice.
On Monday evening I had the pleasure of sitting next to Nigel Mansell. Your Lordships will know that he is a superb racing driver. He assured me that he was not retiring. Some of us may think that perhapsohe is a little over the hill now, but never mind. We discussed the noble Lord's Bill. Mr. Mansell has achieved in his sport of motor racing the highest goals and has had some horrific accidents. He told me that he knew all the risks and all the dangers involved but that it was entirely his decision to take part. He started as an amateur. There is no point in trying to make money because as an amateur one cannot. It happened that he was good enough to take
1018
part in the professional sport and to excel at it. I reiterate that the choice is up to the individual; and who are we to deny people that right?
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has very serious moral views about boxing; I appreciate that entirely. However, I am sure that if his Bill succeeds, a dangerous precedent will have been created and that it will follow that all sports which have an element of danger to humans will be at risk. The noble Lord mentioned other sports such as football where accidents happen. One has only to read the newspapers to know that a number of what are supposed to be accidents are intentional, which is why a number of such incidents have come in front of the courts.
Finally, I do not believe that the Bill will stand amending in Committee. It is far too wide-ranging in its form and in order to get anywhere it must be completely redrafted. I have no legal brain and that is purely my own feeling. But it is not for Parliament to legislate against sport, either this sport or sport in general. It is for the appropriate regulatory bodies which govern the sports constantly to improve their standards and to minimise the potential risks for all those who participate at any level. As was said by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird during the debate on 5th April:
"Adaptation and not banning is the answer".—[Official Report, 5/4/95; col. 292.]
I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Shrewsbury.)
6.19 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for saying that he is content that the Bill should not proceed along the usual lines but should be referred to a Select Committee so that its merits and demerits can be examined and . reported to the House.
The advantage of the Select Committee procedure is that the committee will receive evidence from informed sources and must then make a written report to the House. The committee can reject the Bill outright, amend it or promote its own Bill. In either of the latter two events, the Bill will return to your Lordships for a full Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The House, with the benefit of the report it has received from the Select Committee, can do anything it pleases with the Bill. In particular, the committee can amend the Bill to clear up an ambiguity highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the last occasion; namely, whether the Bill covers kick-boxing, which I understand has been introduced from Thailand and involves punching the head with the feet. The Select Committee can clear up any other ambiguities which are contained in the Bill.
In 1984, the controversial Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill and the Small Charities Bill were referred to a Select Committee for evidence and a report. The Select Committee denied both Bills a further reading and drafted its own Bill which became the highly successful Charities Act 1985.

1019
However, this Boxing Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, can be sent to a Select Committee only if your Lordships permit the Bill a Second Reading. I feel sure that none of your Lordships will wish to deny the House and, indeed, the public the benefit of the evidence and the independent report which a Select Committee is in a position to provide. The report of the Select Committee will guide the House to a responsible conclusion. And it will avoid the House being troubled again and again and again by a boxing Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I feel certain, will accept the considered view of this House based upon evidence and an appropriate investigation and report by a Select Committee.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord proceeds, perhaps he will clarify one point. He says that a Select Committee would have power to reject the Bill. Would it not be more accurate to say that it would have power to recommend rejection of the Bill?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I stand to be corrected but my understanding of the rules is that if a Select Committee reports against a Bill which has been referred to it, the Bill does not proceed further. I may be wrong but that is my understanding of the Orders of the House. I shall check that.
In our last debate, we had the advantage of the presence of the president of the Lonsdale Club, the vice-president of the Lonsdale Club, the vice-president of the British Board of Boxing Control and an appeal steward of the British Board of Boxing Control. I am not certain whether they are all present tonight but I am sure that their superior knowledge and expertise would be of immense value to a Select Committee when taking evidence.
As has already been said, the Bill is not intended to do anything at all about amateur boxing which, as one of your Lordships said in our last debate,
""helps young men to learn discipline, responsibility and competitive skills".—(Official Report, 5/4/95; col. 291.]
Nor, I understand, is it the intention to do anything about boxing in boys' clubs.
I have no committed stance against professional boxing. I have no experience of it; I have never been a spectator. I do not even watch it on television. Therefore, I cannot pretend to know the answer to the question until I have heard the evidence and seen what report a Select Committee produces.
I do not attach very much weight to the argument so often advanced that to ban professional boxing would merely drive it underground or abroad. The same argument can be advanced against the banning of cock fighting, bear fighting and dog fighting but no one wishes to see those pastimes legalised.
Again, I do not attach much weight to the fact that there are more deaths in motor racing, mountain climbing, point to point racing, ocean sailing, hang-gliding and other exciting and dangerous sports than there are in boxing. In none of those activities is one contestant endeavouring to inflict a physical injury on his opponent. In my view, that is the question mark which stands over professional boxing. Since dueling
1020
with rapiers became unlawful two or more centuries ago, there is no other contest tolerated in this country where one contestant seeks to inflict a physical injury on his opponent which may cause disablement—temporary or reversible, it is hoped, but sometimes, unfortunately, irreversible.
My noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant put his name down to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, he is not able to be present so we are deprived of his great knowledge of head injuries. However, he has authorised me to say that had he been here he would have supported strongly the proposal that the Bill should go to a Select Committee for evidence and a report. My noble friend has also authorised me to quote from the speech he made in 1991. Among other things, he said:
"There is powerful neurological evidence to indicate clearly that a severe blow to the head, however caused … almost inevitably results in the death of a small number of brain cells … In the course of my professional neurological practice, I have seen too many men who have gone on too long in the professional ring, who have been allegedly, according to the press and to others, marvellously brave at taking punishment. In consequence they have suffered progressive brain damage … They have gone on to develop a progressive deterioration or degeneration of the intellect, called dementia, combined with features of Parkinson's disease and that slow, sombre shuffling gait which is so much a hallmark of the punch-drunk syndrome".—[Official Report, 4/12/91; col. 296.]
I submit respectively that the responsible course for this House to take is to grant the Bill a Second Reading so that it can be sent to a Select Committee under arrangements which will fall to be considered by the Liaison Committee.
I earnestly hope that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, will, in the circumstances, feel able to withdraw his amendment that the Bill be read a second time in six months and that the Bill will therefore he given a Second Reading. If that is done, it will not be a victory for the anti-boxing lobby; it will be a victory for common sense. I also hope that any newspaper which sees fit to report our debate this evening will not say, if a Second Reading is granted, that the anti-boxing lobby has at last won. That would be quite untrue. There has been so much discussion and comment in the press, and elsewhere, about professional boxing that I feel we have a duty to look at the topic and not be seen to dismiss criticism out of hand.
I shall have no further right to speak in the debate after I sit down. Therefore, perhaps I may explain why I intend not to move my Motion if the Bill is given a Second Reading. I tabled my Motion for commitment to a Select Committee in order that the House might debate the merits of that course of action. However, under our current procedure, I am advised that it is ultimately a matter for the Liaison Committee to express its view as to whether it is appropriate and practical for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee. Pressure of business and availability of resources are relevant to that question.
Accordingly, if noble Lords give the Bill a Second Reading—as I so much hope they will—I shall not move my Motion this evening in the hope that the Liaison Committee will recommend re-commitment to a Select Committee.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, having listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Motion to throw out the Bill and that he will accept that it is highly desirable at present to have a Select Committee so that this most important matter can be considered.
I have to apologise to the House for having been wrong on the last occasion that we held one of these debates. I suggested that it was the heavyweights that caused the damage. I was wrong about that because the recent disgraceful scenes in Glasgow which ended in tragedy arose out of a contest between lightweights. Apparently the weight of the contestants does not come into it; a fatal or serious injury can result from a lightweight fight exactly as it can from a heavyweight fight.
Comparison between the deliberate violence of the boxing ring and the accidental violence in a contact sport is totally irrelevant; indeed, the two things really do not come together in any way. I believe that the noble and learned Lord made that point. I cannot but think that even primitive man, on observing the human body and the bony hard skull at one end of it and nowhere else, must surely have realised that there was something rather special inside the skull which needed to be specially tended.
Now that doctors have much more sophisticated ideas about what goes on inside the bony skull, we must listen to them. Doctors are not squeamish or faint-hearted people. When rugger matches, university rags or, indeed, boat race nights take place, medical students will be found right in the thick of it. Therefore, when doctors start telling us that there is something very serious and dangerous going on in the boxing ring, we really need to pay attention to them.
We have been told about the "undergrounding" of boxing—if I may use that expression. Indeed, that has been mentioned this evening. It was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Falkland on the last occasion that we debated the matter. My noble friend was interrupted during his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, (and we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord later) who asked:
"Has the noble Viscount considered the fact that if it were to go underground there would be no hope of the large rewards being made to professional boxers?".—[Official Report, 5/4/95; col. 302.]
Of course, that would eliminate the professional boxer who is only in it for the money and not doing it for fun because he thinks that it is a worthwhile sport.
Further, what are the police doing? Do they conduct all their activities upon the surface? Do they. never delve into what goes on underground? It is hard to believe that the police can be unaware or unmindful of boxing matches going on underground to any great extent.
I turn now to the tragedy in Glasgow which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned. In that respect, I believe that every spectator needs to say to himself, "If I and my fellow spectators didn't enjoy as entertainment watching two young men trying to bash each other into
1022
insensibility, then that young man in Glasgow who is now dead would still be alive today". I hope that the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, although I shall vote against the Bill, I want to express my appreciation to my noble friend for allowing us the opportunity to discuss some of the issues involved. There are rational arguments to be considered on both sides of the question. I am well aware of the considerations forcefully put before us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. However, I am bound to say to the noble and learned Lord that it seems to me to be an extraordinary procedure—and I am not quite sure if we are to vote on the amendment before or after the Second Reading vote—to state that we want a Select Committee to examine all the arguments about boxing and that we will decide the issue on the Second Reading of a Bill of one clause, such as that now before the House.
I can understand that the Government may wish to hold an inquiry into boxing. When I had some responsibility for sport I held inquiries into football but I established those inquiries in the way in which that is normally done, with proper terms of reference. I did not set up an inquiry, as it were, as an adjunct of a one-clause Bill, in the way that is now being proposed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will consider whether, if he wants a Select Committee or an inquiry to consider this matter, this is the appropriate way to bring that about. I honestly do not think that it is.
I wish to comment briefly on the remarkable suggestion that injuries caused in other sports are brought about by accidental fouls. I can assure the House on the basis of my 20 odd years' experience as a football referee that in the laws of football there is no such thing as an accidental foul. A foul is committed intentionally. I am bound to say with great regret that much intentional fouling occurs today in football, rugby and other sports. That is a sad situation. Let us not think that intentional injuries are being caused in boxing but not in other sports. People who believe that are living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. I do not believe that that is an argument in favour—
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the point that the noble Lord has just made, surely he would agree that in boxing the aggression is within the rules whereas an intentional foul is against the rules?
Lord Howell: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord on that point. I was just about to deal with amateur and especially schoolboy boxing in which I indulged in my day. That may account for people perhaps thinking that I have suffered from intellectual damage ever since. I have sought during a long period in politics to get over that unfortunate occurrence.
I believe it is illogical of my noble friend Lord Taylor to say that he disregards amateur boxing and schoolboy boxing because they are not intended to cause injury.. I can assure the noble Lord that there is just as much of an intention to cause distress to the opponent in amateur

1023
boxing and, I suppose, in schoolboy boxing as there is in professional boxing. To disregard schoolboy and amateur boxing for the purposes of this Bill is to my mind illogical. However, of course I am glad that he is trying to be illogical in that respect.
I do not intend to speak for too long but later I shall return to the governance that the Boxing Board of Control should exercise. I still follow schoolboy boxing. At the slightest sign of any difficulty or distress in schoolboy boxing the contest is stopped. I believe one can say the same thing about amateur boxing. I hesitate to criticise the British Boxing Board of Control in the presence of my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, but I believe it is unable to exercise the same rigid control over professional boxing as is found in schoolboy and amateur boxing.
I refer to disgraceful crowd scenes that have taken place at Glasgow and Birmingham. Let us not think, however, that that is unique to boxing. I spent years addressing the problem of disgraceful crowd scenes at football matches. I set up committees of inquiry. Finally the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, investigated the serious problems which arose at Hillsborough. I was present at Hillsborough and witnessed the problems. Serious problems have been associated with football. More recently problems, although less serious, have been associated with Rugby League, where disturbing crowd scenes have occurred. That is a phenomenon to which we rightly have to pay attention but it would be wrong to propose that as a unique argument in favour of this Bill as those situations occur in other sports.
I have several areas of anxiety regarding this matter and I understand why my noble friend has raised these matters. I am concerned, for example, about the arrangements that are put in hand as regards professional boxing before a contest even begins. We are told that pre-fight arrangements are now made with the nearest neurosurgical hospital and that ambulances have to be kept on standby. Specialist doctors are to be found at the corners of the ring. I concede an argument against myself, as it were, but I am bound to say that if those involved in the sport have to go to those lengths to try to safeguard the well-being of the participants, that merits the kind of debate we are having today. Such matters must be seriously considered.
I have given the matter considerable thought over many years and I return again and again to what seems to me to be the overriding question. The question is not whether or not we should ban boxing—that is not the matter we are discussing tonight—but whether we should prevent the exercise of free will on behalf of citizens who, knowing all the dangers, nevertheless wish to participate in this sport. That seems to me to be the essence of this matter. There can be no doubt at all that, whether we like it or not, people wish to participate in boxing. They must know all the risks involved. The recent deaths and injuries cannot have occurred without people understanding the risks which are involved in boxing.
I accept that people do not take up motor sports, mountaineering and other such dangerous sports to inflict injury. But injury is almost inevitable when one
1024
undertakes those sports. However, should we ban boxing, we shall soon be confronted with the argument as to whether we should allow people to indulge in dangerous sports where there is a risk that they may endanger themselves and others. For example, motor cars leave the track and smash into spectators. People who climb mountains are roped to one another and if one of them falls he often injures others. I have always found that to be a compelling argument. I do not believe we should exercise a legal right to prevent the exercise of free will on the part of our fellow citizens.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House and the British Boxing Board of Control further steps that could be taken. First, I believe that many injuries are caused as a result of the wasting that boxers endure to achieve the weight at which they wish to fight. That certainly limits their physical prowess and constitutes a danger. I hope that we shall try to stop that. Boxers should fight at their natural weight and should not be forced to undergo a reducing process which can have such dangerous effects. Incidentally, it is interesting that none of the boxing accidents which have been mentioned has occurred with heavyweight boxers. Heavyweight boxers do not attempt to reduce their weight. It is remarkable that they do not appear to suffer the injuries that we are discussing. It is worth mentioning that.
Secondly, in my judgment, fights which are becoming one-sided should be stopped by the referee more quickly than at present. The British Boxing Board of Control has much to answer for. I know that it may have angry crowds, but if a fight is becoming one sided it should not be allowed to continue. So often we see on our television screens fights which proceed much further than they should.
Thirdly, I believe that the British Boxing Board of Control should introduce compulsory head protection for people engaged in the sport. That has not been introduced in this country and, in my judgment, it should be.
I feel strongly about one issue which I believe that a governing body of sport should control. I illustrate the matter by referring to the extraordinary performances of the boxer known as Prince Naseem Hamed. Noble Lords may have seen this man. He prances around the ring leering at his opponents, behaving in the most nauseating fashion. Whatever he is up to, it cannot possibly be defended under the term of sportsmanship. In most sports ungentlemanly conduct is an offence against the rules. If it is not so in boxing, it should be made so at once if our friends in boxing want, as they say, to clean up their act. We do not want such leering provocation and nauseating behaviour by this young man or anyone else. It has happened before and should be stopped.
I conclude by saying that boxing has to control itself. If it does not, it will. destroy itself. That is another fear to which we should have regard. However, on the main question, do not let us interfere with the exercise of free will for sporting people if they wish to take up boxing, but let us see that they do so under sensible, controlled circumstances.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Ackner:My Lords, I should have thought that it was a strange manifestation of the democratic process if there is to be a denial of a proper investigation of an activity in regard to which there is now a strongly arguable case that it is unlawful, and an activity which involves, as its main aim, the infliction of bodily injury. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, I wish to hear and evaluate the rational arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said exist on both sides.
I am not parti pris. I and my two brothers—respectively, Ackners 1, 2 and 3, at our prep school—were all involved in being trained to box. It was a strong feature of the school, justified on the basis, among other things, that it taught one to keep one's temper and to be a good loser—characteristics which came in handy from time to time at the Bar in later life. Those days were long ago, and I was sorry to learn on 'phoning the headmaster's secretary that eight years ago boxing at the school had been stopped because of the appreciation of the possibility that damage could be done. That possibility may be remote when one is dealing with youngsters up to the age of 13, but it is still possible.
I have referred to the legal position and I should like to say a little about that, in particular in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose great efforts in the case in the House of Lords to which I shall refer failed (I was not a party to the Judicial Committee) but failed with a respectable minority of two in the ultimate decision.
That was the oddest of cases. It involved the appellants being convicted of assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. The incidents leading up to the convictions occurred in consensual sado-masochistic homosexual encounters. In that case it was held that the consents—no doubt the enthusiastic consents—of all those who gained satisfaction from the activities described in the judgment was no defence because what they set out to do, and what they achieved in doing, was to cause bodily harm to those who were the subject matter of their sadism. Bodily harm in law has a very wide connotation. It is,
"any injury or hurt which interferes with a person's health or comfort".
That understates the aims of any boxer. He is obviously anxious to do a great deal more than that. That differentiates boxing from other sporting activities where contact is involved because the aim and purpose of the contest is by bodily hurt or injury ultimately, if possible, to knock a person unconscious. In other sports which involve danger the aim and purpose is not, for example, to crash one's racing car. The aim and purpose is not to commit foul after foul because one will not survive on the rugger or football field, one hopes, for long if that is the case. The aim and the purpose is to carry out that sport with the minimum of pain and hurt to anyone involved.
The purpose of boxing, to which I have referred, and I believe the now accepted medical material, show that that activity is very probably now unlawful. In R v. Brown their Lordships referred to elderly cases dealing with prize fighting and other fights. It is
1026
interesting to see how this was approached. The case much relied upon, R v. Coney in 1882, involved the consideration by 11 judges of prize fighting. I am happy to say that on this point they were unanimous. Mr. Justice Cave said this at page 539 of 8 Queen's Bench Reports:
"The true view is, I think, that a blow struck in anger, or which is likely or is intended to do corporal hurt, is an assault"—
—that is, boxing—
"but that a blow struck in sport, and not likely, nor intended to cause bodily harm, is not an assault, and that, an assault being a breach of the peace and unlawful, the consent of the person struck is immaterial. If this view is correct a blow struck in a prize-fight is clearly an assault; but playing with single-sticks or wrestling do not involve an assault; nor does boxing with gloves in the ordinary way, and not with the ferocity and severe punishment to the boxers deposed to in Reg.v.Orton".
Mr. Justice Stephens said, in the same case:
"In cases where life and limb are exposed to no serious danger"—
which is not boxing nowadays—
"in the common course of things, I think that consent is a defence to a charge of assault,even when considerable force is used, as, for instance"—
and he again deals with single-stick, sparring with gloves and so on. My noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey, in summarising his analysis of Coney,
said that,
"it is authority for the proposition that the public interest limits the extent to which an individual may consent to infliction upon himself by another of bodily harm and that such public interest does not intervene in the case of sports where any infliction of injury is merely incidental to the purpose of the main activity"
It was said in R. v. Donovan,
"As a general rule … it is an unlawful act to beat another person with such a degree of violence that the infliction of bodily harm is a probable consequence, and when such an act is proved, consent is immaterial".
There were, of course, exceptions to that general rule and boxing was then looked upon as one of them because it was thought that the parties were not subject to any serious danger. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, stressed, the arrangements that are made before a professional boxing match takes place, with surgeons, ambulances, and specialist medical assistance laid on, show that serious danger is expected throughout that contest. That data was not before the courts going back 50 or more years
If there is a strongly arguable case—and I submit there is—that boxing of the professional kind to which reference has been made is or may be unlawful, it would be utterly wrong to kill a Bill which is designed to investigate further that activity and, no doubt, to come up with proposals as to how to deal with it. In my respectful submission, it would be a reaction of a kind that would do this House no credit in its approach to how serious matters should be handled. For that reason, I respectfully suggest that we should not resist a Second Reading.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is one of which we should all take careful note. As I shall mention, it is an answer

1027
to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the exercise of free will is the only thing that matters. I hope that I am not being irrelevant when I say that the gladiators in ancient Rome exercised their free will when they butchered each other to make a Roman holiday. Prize fighters did that for money and they were stopped. Duelling was stopped. It was not done for money but for pride. However, it was the exercise of free will on both sides and it was stopped.
In your Lordships' House we nearly always give a Second Reading to a Bill. We refrain from voting against it even though many of us disagree with it. I hope that in the light of what has been said in this debate and in view of the usual practice in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury will not prevent or attempt to prevent further discussion on this important matter by simply moving that the Bill should be read again in six months' time. In effect, that would kill the Bill for another Session. I implore him not to do it.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long. There is no need after what we have heard. I have broadly two reasons for supporting the Bill. The first I can put this way. All of us in the course of our lives, whether long like mine or shorter, have hoped that our society would become more civilised as time went on. Alas, however, violence has increased and become part of the way of life of so much of our community in recent years and we must be careful to try to prevent the attitude among people that violence is a legitimate part of life. We must try to dissuade them from it. Boxing seen on television gives people, especially the young, the impression that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances. That is my first reason for supporting the Bill, put as briefly as I can.
My second reason has been mentioned, the medical reason. There is now strong scientific evidence and medical proof that heavy blows to the human head—whether to a heavyweight boxer like Muhammad Ali whose head suffered through his contests, or a middleweight, or any boxer—can destroy some of the brain cells.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the direction which his speech is taking. However, I wonder whether he has thought through to the logical conclusion. It is, for example, that we should ban the heading of balls at football matches because they undoubtedly damage the brain in some cases. Also what would he do about West Indian fast bowlers aiming the ball at heads of batsmen? Is that something of which the state should take account and declare it to be illegal? There are ramifications all round. I repeat my point that I have no objection to a proper investigation into all that, but not as an adjunct to the one-clause Bill before the House tonight.
Lord Airedale:My Lords, I do not believe that this should be the opportunity for a second speech.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have the deepest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Howell, whom I have known for many years in our membership of both Houses of Parliament. I do not believe that he would have said
1028
what he has just said if, on reflection, he had taken on board the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He pointed out that boxing, among all the sports that we have, is now the only one in which one person is there intentionally to hit another. Goodness knows, in rugger and in heading a football we do not intend to injure someone else. But it may happen. In hunting there are accidents, and many of us enjoy that sport enormously. But the accidents do not occur as a result of one person trying to hit another. Boxing is now unique in that respect.
Let me resume briefly my reminder to the House of the strong medical evidence. For some years the British Medical Association has been strongly against boxing. It is not only the brain cells that can be injured by blows to the head; the eyes, ears, mouth and teeth can be injured, and are. One of the problems in relation to injury to brain cells is that there is no recovery; the cells are not replaced. Those are my two main reasons in favour of the Bill.
We should be doing all we can to make our own society, and by example the society of other countries, more civilised, peaceful, kind and gentle. In that context, the display of force in professional boxing, especially on television, needs to be very carefully considered.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I declare an interest as an appeal steward of the British Boxing Board of Control. It is a position for which I receive no financial reward. This is not a matter on which I understand any party to have particular stated policies. Views differ in every section of this House, as in society as a whole.
As noble Lords were reminded, this is the third time that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has brought his Bill before the House for a Second Reading. His two previous Bills were each refused a Second Reading after debates in December 1991 and earlier this year. The words of this Bill are exactly the same. There has been no attempt to adapt it to cover some of the drafting criticisms previously made. However, .those are matters of detail. I hope that the House will reject the Bill in principle, as it did twice before. I also hope that noble Lords will consider that enough is enough and will support the amendment of the noble Earl if he moves it.
I do not believe that the arguments for and against professional boxing have improved with age or will improve with repetition. I certainly do not wish to bore the House by repeating what I have said twice before.
My noble friend Lord Addington regrets that he cannot be here. In one or both of the earlier debates he made a comparison with other physical contact and combat sports which remain untouched by this Bill.

1029
As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, ultimately boxing remains a matter of choice for the boxers. Nobody can say that nowadays boxers do not make an informed choice as to whether to run the risks of their sport.
Earlier this year a distinguished former boxer, Bobby Neill, wrote:
"Boxing teaches respect for your opponent and fellow boxers, teaches discipline, is a character builder, teaches respect for yourself and your fellow man, through hard physical training and a properly controlled diet. It teaches you to overcome adversity as no other sport can"
I beg to dispute that violence is encouraged by boxing, and I suggest that boxing, almost uniquely, channels violence and aggression.
The Bill seeks to create a criminal offence. The House should not lose sight of that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned the observation of noble and learned Lords in the Appellate Committee and the decision in the case of Brown. That raises a different question. There is a distinction between the legality of boxing as such, as discussed in Brown, and the creation of a specific criminal offence of promoting professional boxing, as this Bill seeks to do.
I suggest that strong public policy grounds are required for the criminalisation of what has been accepted as a lawful sport for very many years. Noble Lords should know that the British Boxing Board of Control remains vigilant. I suggest that it is one of the best boxing organisations in the world. As some noble Lords may also know, further safety standards were introduced this year. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the matter of severe weight loss. Subject to correction, my understanding is that the British Boxing Board of Control is particularly aware of the problem of severe dehydration to effect rapid weight loss. I know that the board takes the matter very seriously.
There is no doubt that, even if this Bill became law, illegal boxing would continue underground. It would do so, however, without the controls and safeguards that currently exist to govern the weight of boxers, proper matchmaking and matters such as the number of rounds for different categories of bout.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. If that were to happen, the enormous sums that pass in relation to a professional boxing match would no longer be paid, would they?
Lord Meston: My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Lord to some extent. It may be the case that enormous sums would not pass. However, with respect, it is naive to suggest that money would be eliminated as a factor. Frankly, the prime motive for continuing illegal boxing behind closed doors would be financial.
Boxing in those situations would also continue without the provision of medical supervision and the availability of medical help if required and without alert licensed referees. It would certainly continue without any rules to prevent commercial exploitation of those who should probably not be in a boxing ring at the time. One of the tasks of appeal stewards is to consider
1030
whether licences should be suspended or terminated to stop boxers going on when they begin to lose too many fights; or whether to suspend a referee who has perhaps not been quick enough to stop a bout when it should have been stopped. It is an inescapable fact that such illegal boxing would continue in that way, whether one likes it or not.
I suggest that the question is therefore whether Parliament wants a properly regulated and carefully controlled sport, as now, or whether there is to be the development of an unlawful and unregulated sport, which would undoubtedly be much more dangerous. I suggest that there is only one sensible answer. I therefore hope that the Bill will be rejected once again.
It may be tempting to follow the course suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, if it provides the opportunity for serious consideration of all the arguments and evidence, as the Law Commission suggested in its consultation paper No. 134. Other noble Lords may not be so tempted on the basis that the arguments and principles have been well rehearsed too many times to require further analysis in Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that at first sight it is quite remarkable to have a Select Committee procedure on the back of what is, on the face of it, an abolitionist Bill.
19 p.m.
Vicount WaverleyMy Lords, this has been an interesting Second Reading debate. I do not speak in favour or otherwise of the merits of the Bill but in support of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, who wants to see the Bill committed to a Select Committee.
Nobody can deny that boxing is both a major and controversial sport, accommodating participants ranging from children to professionals. There are many conflicting views both for and against, with a further body of opinion insisting on modification.
The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, would, as we all know, effectively exclude further debate on this important subject in the House at this time. I do not believe that this country and indeed the sport as a whole would thank us for that. I am sure that the noble Earl would be the first to agree that there are sufficient unanswered questions on this important matter to support a case for an in-depth authoritative study. A Select Committee is the appropriate mechanism for that. I believe that it is in the best interests of the sport to put to rest once and for all the many questions that are emerging. Now is the opportunity. I strongly urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment and would encourage all noble Lords to support the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman for an investigation.
Finally, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to tell the House his views on whether he would support committal of the Bill and if not, why not. Will he accept that the overwhelming sense of the House is towards committal?
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I rise in the gap to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I personally boxed in competitive boxing for 10 years of my life, during all my Army career and all the time that I was at both prep. school and public school. It may have done me some damage but I am not aware of it.
I very much hope that we can have a Select Committee on this very difficult subject, about which some people feel very strongly. I have not heard any argument in this House today which has gone against the suggestion that a Select Committee be set up to look into this particular Boxing Bill.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate and I promise to be short. The fact that I do not take sides may assist me to keep that promise.
I should like to support the proposal that the Bill obtain a Second Reading. It raises a very important question. It is not an easy question, as the words which have fallen from your Lordships clearly indicate. I appreciate the high motives of the noble Earl in taking his present course. I should never use of him the expression "an attempt to kill the Bill" with the pejorative implications which such a description of action would imply. But if this Bill is to be rejected, let it be after careful and conscientious deliberation. Let us not be afraid to hear and talk about the points of view on each side.
Thirty or 40 years ago it would never have occurred to me that professional boxing should be stopped. I confess that it is 40 years since I attended professional prize fighting. I went a few times to the King's Hall in Belfast when there was a title fight on and I have watched boxing on television. I have not had the personal experience of boxing that other noble Lords have mentioned. I had the gloves on only once at the age of seven. It was at a girls' school which took little boys. Another boy aged seven, who was not quite so little as I, brought to school two pairs of boxing gloves and we had a fight in the break. Sixty-nine years later I cannot remember which, if any, of our fellow pupils we were trying to impress, but after 10 minutes we called it an honourable draw.
One cannot help but realise that the pleasure and excitement of the crowd are at their greatest when the action is at its fiercest. That is something which makes one think. I sat in the case of R. v.Brown, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, addressed us so cogently and almost successfully. The papers portrayed the result as three rather old-fashioned old men from the Middle Temple outvoting two young enterprising and intellectual companions. Well, that is one point of view.
I am now, by statute, unfit to judge and possibly in fact as well. But the fact that I cannot take part any more allows me to feel a little freer to say something about that case. I approached it as one in which the real question was, if people consent to have
1032
actual bodily harm done to them by someone else, whether that is a defence for the person who is inflicting the actual bodily harm. Rightly or wrongly, I took the view that the answer was that consent was no defence. We all knew that consent was a defence to what is called common assault—a mere touching, etc. We knew that it was no defence to the infliction of grievous bodily harm—that is, really serious personal injury.
One comment that one might make about boxing—and it has to be weighed in the scales—is that there are times when the boxers are trying to inflict on each other not only actual bodily harm but really serious personal injury. I am not trying to moralise, but is the fact that that is possibly an unlawful activity not an additional reason why we should look at the whole thing rather carefully? Perhaps some regulatory legislation might be brought in as a result of all the deliberation. Perhaps one does not go the whole way. Perhaps the Bill should be thrown out. But, please, let it be discussed.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I speak rather personally in this debate. When my late husband was a medical student at the London Hospital, there was great rivalry, which was part of the fun of being a student. There was a rugby club, a boxing club, and so on. Bart's might stage a fight, as would St. Thomas's. All that kind of activity was going on. He joined in very happily.
Once my husband became qualified and a consultant, not only at the London Hospital but at the postgraduate Hammersmith Hospital, he saw injured patients and said, "We must stop this." There is a lot of propaganda about famous boxers who fall into terrible crises. We had a practice in Shoreditch which took in much of the East End of London. The patients we saw were not prizewinners. They were young men with terrible injuries. They were not famous and the public did not know about them. We knew about them. They never worked again; their whole lives were wrecked.
We are often told that boxing is a very good way for black men to get into some kind of society. That has been said to me in New York and Washington. "Well," it is said, "they cannot do much else, so let them be boxers." We did not see famous boxers. I always thought, as did my late husband, that a kind of alibi was being used. Why should boxing be regarded as providing an opening for those young people? Such openings should exist in all walks of life. It is often said that all the best boxers are black because it is the only thing they can do. That makes me sad. It suggests that we are not providing sufficient opportunities for those people.
We saw patient after patient who was not and never would be famous, knocked out of the race before he had even started. Some people say that all sport is dangerous. That is true. I confess that I am in my 80th year and still love dangerous sports. I have only just given up rock climbing. When I was rock

1033
climbing and hanging from the end of a rope, the chap at the top did not cut the rope to make me fall. My fall would not be caused deliberately. That is the difference. Boxing is the deliberate causing of injury.
Accidents occur in driving and in many other sports throughout the world. But it is stupid to say that boxing is simply another sport and that accidents can happen anywhere. Boxing injuries are not accidents; they are caused deliberately. That is the difference, and that is why the sooner boxing is banned the better. That is why I shall be voting with my noble friend.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I particularly want to thank my noble friend for again bringing this subject before us and giving the House the opportunity to discuss a matter which is undoubtedly of public concern. We have been around this course before and none of the arguments, the facts and figures, that I have heard tonight have altered from six months ago when this proposition was rejected by both Houses of Parliament in the same week.
Before I begin I should make clear that, as this is a Private Member's Bill on an issue in which Labour has no official party position, I am speaking completely in a personal capacity. That is why I can vote. If I were speaking officially, I should have to abstain. In that context I should add that my party's shadow sports spokesman in the Commons today stated to me that he opposes this Bill.
I should add too, in a psychological context, that I have a constitutional aversion to bans of all kinds—the banning of boxing, fox hunting, fishing, smoking and alcohol. Down the path of personal pleasures lies an endless pursuit of people who wish to ban us from doing them. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will know, smoking and alcohol cause far more deaths and injuries than boxing and some day we may hear from him the extent to which they should be made illegal.
My position may stem from the fact that I am not from the Cromwellian stable from which some others originate and my ancestors may well have been in Droghede when Cromwell arrived to ban them. If my noble friend or any other noble Lord wishes to introduce a Bill to ban bans, I can promise in advance that they will have my total support.
I shall not repeat all the familiar arguments for and against boxing. They were put well in April and have been put well tonight by noble Lords on all sides. My position is contained in detail in Hansard of 5th April. However, I should like to pick up -one or two points where the argument continues. In relation to deaths and injuries we heard discussion about other sports being more dangerous. That cannot be dismissed. My noble friend read out the death roll from boxing; but for motorcar and motorcycle racing and horse riding I could read out a much longer and equally distinguished list. Hill walking is of course the most dangerous sport of all.
1034
My noble friend Lord Taylor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a strong point, as did my noble friend Lady Jaeger, that the injuries that occur in other sports are not deliberately inflicted. That is an important point which I have always accepted. But it is not a decisive argument and is of little interest to the victims in those other sports.
In high risk sports deaths and injuries are inevitable; they are central to those sports, even if they are not the central purpose. Deaths and injuries will continue to occur in those sports at a higher level than in boxing while mountains, fast motors and horses retain their present characteristics. Accidents in those sports are as predictable and inevitable as they are in boxing.
Why do we not include martial arts? Boxing is not unique in having the infliction of injury as its main objective; martial arts do likewise. So why not ban them all? Why does not the school about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke ban rugby as well as boxing? More serious injuries occur in rugby than in boxing and I do not know where that slippery path ends.
The reason why the proponents of the Bill wish to ban boxing and not other sports is because they have a specific moral objection to it. They dislike sports of concentrated physical aggression and where physical damage is a major objective. The Bill therefore is a vehicle for a specific moral stance for which I have great respect but which I do not share. I particularly did not share it when my noble friend said that boxing was "reprehensible". I am very wary before referring to activities, that many of our citizens enjoy and choose, as "reprehensible".
The medical aspects of boxing and its better regulation to reduce the risks are important. Many anxieties expressed by noble Lords could be secured by better regulation. The sport need not be banned to secure that. The boxing authorities recently introduced 12 reforms to improve the sport and reduce the risks.. Undoubtedly more could be done. My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned some improvements and I have my own suggestions. A different Bill specifying such reforms or a Select Committee along those lines would certainly receive wider support and my sympathy.
Any approach must be realistic. Boxing is and always will be a hard and demanding physical sport. It will always involve some physical risk, as do those other even more dangerous sports to which I referred. But it is not just dangerous; it is also popular among many thousands who never suffer any injuries. It is regulated and open to tighter regulation which would not be the case if it were banned and driven underground. As anyone who has lived or worked in the socially deprived areas of this country will know—perhaps this House is full of them—it provides a sense of discipline and achievement. Above all—here I support totally what my noble friend Lord Howell said—it is voluntary. No one is compelled to box. No one is unaware of the risk.
There is massive publicity for injuries in boxing, probably more publicity than in any other sport. No one is deceived or intimidated into going into boxing. There

1035
are no innocent victims. It is done, as my noble friend said, with complete freedom of will and choice. To me, that is the heart of the issue. I am sorry that, in dealing with the legal aspects, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did not deal with that central point.
This Bill seeks to abolish that individual free choice. Boxing is quite different from cock fighting and bear baiting, where the participants have no freedom of choice. It is quite different from illegal drug taking, which is not done under proper regulation and medical supervision. It is quite different, though much less interesting, than those border areas of human territory of a sadomasochistic nature, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, because, again, such activities are not carried out under proper legal and medical regulation; although I note with interest that the noble and learned judges are extending their interventions into every corner of our lives. I begin to understand what the Opposition Front Bench has been moaning about.
This is a puritanical measure. It picks out one sport, not the most dangerous, and seeks to eliminate individual freedom to choose to play it. As such, I oppose the Bill and will in my personal capacity vote accordingly. On the question of the Select Committee proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, which is a compromise, it is a question not easy to oppose in principle and I would not be unhappy with that. However, the Bill before us seems not best suited to that procedure. It contains no details. It is simply a one clause moral statement of disapproval of boxing. I agree with my noble friend that if you want an inquiry into boxing then please let us have one. I would support that and so should others. But a Select Committee is not the best way. I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. It is not the best way.
We are in an odd situation. We have a clear Bill before us, a one clause ban, which is suddenly converted into, and is defended as, an inquiry before a Select Committee. That is quite different from the original proposal and is not the best procedure for an inquiry. Furthermore, we have no guarantee that we shall get the Select Committee. Are noble Lords aware that while opposing the Bill before us they may vote for it to go to a Select Committee, but not get the committee but the Bill? I will vote against it. If it is passed, I would prefer it to proceed to a Select Committee. But best of all I would prefer to have a proper government-sponsored inquiry into boxing which I would totally support. I regret that that is not the proposal before us
7.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Government share the concerns first articulated this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and then echoed by subsequent speakers, that the safety of boxers must be the prime consideration. But we do not believe that the professional sport should be banned and cannot
1036
support the Bill, whose effect, as it is drafted now, goes further than that. I should like to take this opportunity to explain our position. I should also make it clear that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, someone like me whose family name is Vane must come from the 17th century parliamentary tradition.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has pointed out, the Bill has a long history which began when I was at school. It is the second time this year that we are debating the matter. Earlier in the year my noble friend Lady Trumpington spoke about boxing after the injuries sustained by Gerald McLellan, and today we are debating banning boxing not long after the tragic death of James Murray. While these are very unhappy events, the Government do not believe that they should be allowed to distort the overall picture of accidents and fatalities in boxing. There are deaths and injuries in other sports too. One only needs to look back at the second half of this year to find instances of this; for example, the racing driver Mika Hakkinen, seriously injured, and the Italian cyclist, Fabio Casartelli, who died in the Tour de France.
Since 1945 there have been 15 deaths in professional boxing. That must be compared to 72 deaths in motor sports and 26 in riding in just five years. We are not, here, dealing with a sport in which death occurs to an extent which is beyond what is considered acceptable in other sports
Equally the same is true so far as concerns injuries. For example, the Sports Council estimates that there are 1.5 million injury incidents in martial arts each year, 8.6 million in soccer, 1.6 million in rugby and 2.7 million in running. There are a negligible number in boxing, which has been identified by the Sports Council in its analysis of sports accidents as being in the least risky category of sports.
Boxing is an established and properly regulated sport in this country at both amateur and professional level in which all those who take part do so willingly, and it has a wide following among the general public. It is lawful, stretches back over hundreds of years and is a major part of this country's sporting heritage.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Lowry, referred to the so-called "Operation Spanner" case. This is now being considered by the European Commission on Human Rights, so for that reason I shall not discuss it further other than to say that I think it better that I say nothing more about the interesting remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, and to comment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, displayed those skills in advocacy, which perhaps on his own admission owe something to schoolboy boxing, to present a legal case which while lucidly expressed and cogently argued is not one the Government would necessarily accept. I am sure he

1037
would agree that his argument is not correct. The wider case he so forcefully made may be the less strong.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I never put forward the thesis that there was no doubt that boxing was illegal. I said that there was a strongly arguable case that that might be the situation and that therefore that was another pointer towards the need for further discussion.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if I have wrongly understood the case of the noble and learned Lord, I take this opportunity to apologise to him.
We believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, that individuals should have the freedom voluntarily to participate in the sport of their choice so long as they are fully aware of the risk involved. What is paramount in the case of boxing is that the element of risk attached to it is minimised so that it is reduced to a generally acceptable level and that proper medical safeguards are always in place.
The British Boxing Board of Control, which is the official body controlling the professional sport, insists on medical safeguards which are among the most rigorous in the world and which are constantly under review. After the death of Bradley Stone last year, the board launched a review of its safety procedures. An independent Medical Review Committee was set up and last month it announced, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, a 12-point plan to improve safety further.
Perhaps I may list some of the proposed changes, some of which have already been implemented, so that your Lordships will see that the British Boxing Board of Control takes its responsibilities very seriously indeed. Perhaps the most significant change is the improved brain scanning which will be done annually for all boxers. That will help detect and prevent any abnormality before it is too late. Weigh-in times are to be brought forward by at least 24 hours. That will help to prevent the chances of boxers dehydrating to make the required weight before a contest and then not rehydrating properly before they get into the ring. After the bout medical checks will also be tightened. Ringside equipment is to be reviewed and staff will have better access to the boxers. Boxers will not be allowed to spar or to take part in contests for 45 days after a stopped fight or a knock-out.
To ban boxing would drive the sport underground and remove those who choose, and who will in the future choose, to box from the very safeguards which now protect them. Furthermore, even if boxing were banned in this country, boxers could still compete overseas where the medical safeguards may not be so stringent, as is the case in those Scandinavian countries where professional boxing is outlawed.
Even now, while boxing is legal, I am told—and this was corroborated earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury—that illegal bouts, often involving criminal behaviour, take place relatively often. During these fights, men are often bare knuckled or tied together at the waist, and even
1038
sometimes fight blindfolded. If that happens now when boxing is legal, I am very sceptical of the suggestion that boxing would not be driven underground if it were to be banned.
The purpose of boxing is not the knock-out, but to score points by breaking through an opponent's defence. It is true that of recent years this sometimes seems to have been forgotten in the razzmatazz surrounding certain film fights where large sums of money have been involved. This so-called "showboating" and "talking up" the fight, risks mutating the sport into mere showbusiness. That is why the British Boxing Board of Control has fined and warned some of those who have engaged in that kind of promotion because it tends to present the activity as mere prize fighting and not the sport of boxing.
If boxing exists, why should those who want to try to earn their living from it not be allowed to do soif that is their wish? After all, those who are good at driving cars fast can become motor racing drivers or those who are good at riding horses well become jockeys or showjumpers or circus artists. Such a ban is exactly what this Bill entails. Further, it will seriously wound the amateur game where youth clubs, who it is generally recognised on all sides fulfil a very valuable role in society and who currently charge an entry fee to help them defray the necessary costs of staging contests, will no longer be able to do so.
In conclusion, our overriding concern is safety and we do not believe—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—that properly regulated professional boxing between volunteers engaged in a lawful sport should be outlawed, for the reasons I have already explained. So we cannot support the Bill.
I have indicated the Government's view of the policy which the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, seeks to implement. Your Lordships have also heard the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee to permit a thorough consideration of all the medical and legal evidence relating to the issue of boxing. A number of noble and learned Lords supported that proposal. I do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to name them individually. When all is said and done, this must be a matter for the House.
It is the responsibility of the Liaison Committee in your Lordships' House to review the Select Committee work of the House to consider requests for ad hoc committees and to report to the House with recommendations. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading this evening, the Liaison Committee should be invited to consider whether a Select Committee on the Bill could perform a useful function. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has indicated that he will be happy to raise the matter with the Liaison Committee at its next meeting should the Bill be read a second time this evening.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the subject has been adequately discussed this evening, and I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have participated in the debate. The matter has been discussed with some seriousness. I wish to make two points. One was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and others, about the drafting of the Bill. That was done upstairs on my behalf. I did not fill in the kind of detail that others have sought.
Tonight we are not really discussing—and I refer to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman—banning professional boxing. Having heard the diversity of views expressed; being conscious of public concern over the matter; and being aware of the legal complications that have been mentioned in the discussion by several noble and learned Lords, we are discussing whether it is right that the House of Lords should remit this matter to the Liaison Committee to consider the appointment of a special committee to look at the issue. That is the issue for which noble Lords will vote. The alternative is that it is rejected out of hand.
Perhaps I may assure noble Lords who are inclined to take that view, that I shall return to this subject time and time again. I abhor violence. I shall pursue that principle as long as I am in this House. That is not the point I am discussing tonight; I am discussing the right of this House to discharge a responsibility to look at this issue, as noble Lords normally do, with calm judgment, hearing evidence, and making up its mind. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that is the issue on which they now have to vote while technically they are voting for my Bill. The issue is that the House of Lords will consider this matter in a Select Committee.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, we have had a fascinating and interesting debate on this issue tonight. In my judgment it has been the finest debate we have had, including the debate in 1991. The arguments have been incredibly powerful. I have listened extremely carefully to all of them, both for and against. They have also been most persuasive.
I feel very strongly indeed about this matter, as do many hundreds of thousands of people in this country, not only the followers of boxing, but followers of all sports. I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said. In my opinion he is completely correct. I entirely agree with his suggestion of an independent inquiry into the sport. At the end of the day, we should not be legislating on such matters. We should leave that to the adequate bodies which have governed these sports for many years, and
1040
which continue to improve the lot of all those who participate in them. Noble Lords will understand when I say that regretfully I have to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
7.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:Contents,39; Not-Contents, 38.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howell, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Inchyra,L.

Annaly, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Leigh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Chesham, L.

Meston, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Mountevans, L.

Colwyn,L.

Mountgarret, V.

Oxfuird, V. [Teller.]

Dean of Harptree, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Platt of Writtle.B.

Donoughue, L.

Rennell, L.

Falkland, V.

Seccombe, B.

Grey.E

Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

Hardwicke, E.

Slim,V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hemphill, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner.L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Attlee, E

Lawrence, L.

Brightman, L.

Lowry, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Carnarvon, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carnock,L.

Nicol, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Richard, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra,L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Strafford, E

Fitt,L.

Taylor of Gryfe,L.

Gainsborough, E.

Templeman, L.

Geraint,L.

Tordoff, L.

Gladwin of Clee.L.

Warnock,B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Waverley, V.

Jeger, B. [Teller.]

Weatherill,L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly
House adjourned at eight minutes past eight o' clock

  Soya Milk
  Soya Milk
  Organophosphate Poisoning: Symptoms
  Organophosphate Poisoning: Symptoms
  Organophosphorus Pesticides and Medicine Users: Biological Monitoring
  Organophosphorus Pesticides and Medicine Users: Biological Monitoring
  Dichlorvos and Diazinon Products: Health Effects
  Dichlorvos and Diazinon Products: Health Effects
  Stonehenge Ministerial Responsibility
  Stonehenge Ministerial Responsibility
  Judicial Findings
  Judicial Findings
  Former Yugoslavia NATO Implementation Force: Volunteer Element in UK Contingent
  Former Yugoslavia NATO Implementation Force: Volunteer Element in UK Contingent
  Former Yugoslavia: NATO Implementation Force
  Former Yugoslavia: NATO Implementation Force
  Former Yugoslavia: Air Attacks
  Former Yugoslavia: Air Attacks
  Gulf Deployment 1994: Cost
  Gulf Deployment 1994: Cost
  Nuclear War: Definition
  Nuclear War: Definition