Sitting of 28 March 1995

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

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited Northern Ireland to discuss the current security situation; and if he will make a statement. [14624]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I visited Northern Ireland on 15 to 16 August 1994, when I met the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland and his senior officers to discuss operational matters.
    Mr. Merchant: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being able to redeploy some troops out of Northern Ireland—an early dividend of the peace process. However, can he reassure the House that, whatever the results of troop redeployments, there will not be an overall reduction in the strength of the British Army?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am happy to give such an unequivocal assurance. I can state categorically that, if the position in Northern Ireland were to permit further reductions in troop levels in Northern Ireland, that would not lead to any reductions in the size of the services. It would enable us to provide more time for training, create a position in which there was less pressure on our troops and enable them to have more time with their families.
    Mr. Trimble: I urge the Secretary of State to proceed very cautiously in any rundown of troop levels in Northern Ireland, especially when there are so many uncertainties and while terrorist organisations remain in existence and continue to be active, as evidenced by the shooting in south Belfast at the weekend, by yet another savage beating-up in Strabane yesterday and by the attacks on the homes of five prison officers in my constituency last night. Those incidents demonstrate that the organisations are still there and that it is not enough to tackle the issue of decommissioning of weapons without dealing with the disbandment of the terrorists.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to advise caution. He can take comfort from the fact that it is now, about six months after the beginnings of the ceasefire, that we have withdrawn the first roulement battalion. Any further changes will be based on the operational and security advice of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the General Officer Commanding,
    810
    Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if we err, we shall err on the side of caution, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman states.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I accept the decision to bring the battalions back to the mainland, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential that they must be on standby duty, and that we must have the facility to return them to Northern Ireland, should the need ever arise?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. The Drummadd roulement battalion, which we have withdrawn to the mainland, was one of two roulement battalions first deployed to Northern Ireland as recently as 1991 and 1992. My hon. Friend can assume that, if it were necessary to redeploy it back to Northern Ireland, that could happen very quickly indeed. The battalion that has been withdrawn was due to finish its tour in April 1995. The successor battalion continues to train on the basis that it might be required, and would be available to go if that were necessary.

    Ministry of Defence Police
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the MOD police. [14625]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Ministry of Defence police is a disciplined body of about 5,000 civilian police officers, who are also civil servants. It is a national police force with full constabulary powers and all its officers are trained to carry arms.
    Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that full and detailed information should now be provided about the future of the Ministry of Defence police, as members of the force have received only bland general assurances? Does the Minister further agree that the police force performs a unique dual-purpose function throughout the country, a combination of police and security roles? Will he assure the House that the future of the force at UK-wide defence establishments is secure?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I understand completely her desire to resolve the difficulties at Rosyth. Although a number of MDP will remain at Rosyth, interim reductions are planned, as she knows, for October 1995 and January 1996, but no final decisions have yet been taken.
    On the other half of the hon. Lady's question, I entirely endorse her opinions. Ministry of Defence police are essential protection for Ministry of Defence property, for equipment and for the men and women and their families who live and work on the defence estate. The recent Blelloch study firmly underlined the continuing need for the Ministry of Defence police, whose services we greatly value.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the Ministry of Defence police will always be welcome in Wiltshire, where they perform an important function, not just within the Ministry of Defence estate, but at the vital

    811
    interface between the civilian, the Home Office police force and the rest of the community? Their presence is welcome as a deterrent against crime.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The Ministry of Defence police are an important part of any of the communities where there is a defence presence. They constitute the sixth largest police force in the United Kingdom; they have full constabulary powers and they operate extremely effectively with our own ordinary local police. I am pleased to endorse my hon. Friend's views and am most grateful to him for drawing them to the attention of the House.

    Officers (Ethnic Origin)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers of (a) Asian and (b) Caribbean origin above the rank of major or equivalent serve in Her Majesty's forces. [14626]
    Mr. Soames: Of the 57 per cent. of service personnel who have so far responded to my Department's survey, 23 officers above the rank of major are of Asian origin and 11 are of Afro-Caribbean origin. That survey did not include the Brigade of Gurkhas.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, which shows, I hope, that the Army is becoming sensitive to some of the statements that it was not fully reflecting our society. Given that the soldiers and officers whom most of the British public and overseas visitors see are from the Household Division and the Brigade of Guards, will the Minister assure us that this year's trooping the colour will be the last example of white supremacy in Her Majesty's forces?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes, in one sense, an important point. He is right to suggest that we need to encourage ethnic minorities to join the Household Division—we are conscious of the need to do that. A special Army youth team has been established to do just that and to make contact with schools, youth organisations and other groups to encourage the young to undertake adventure training and see something of Army life and Army establishments. The team's task is to target areas of high ethnic minority populations to show children in those areas the excitement of an Army career, particularly the possibility of the honour of guarding the sovereign's life.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, particularly in relation to the Royal Air Force, the only means of recruitment will be based on the individual's ability to do the job? One cannot fly a fast jet aircraft or carry out highly technical jobs or any of the other specialist activities unless one is competent. That is the only basis on which the Royal Air Force has ever recruited. It has never cared where people come from.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good and valid point. The armed forces are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations that are subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. We are keen to encourage people from wherever they come, and whatever their colour, race or creed, to join the armed forces, where they will be warmly welcomed and will find an important, challenging and worthwhile role.

    Conference on Disarmament
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to respond to the speech made by the Russian ambassador, Grigory Berdennikov, to the 23 February meeting of the conference on disarmament. [14627]
    Mr. Rifkind: We noted the Russian ambassador's speech with great interest, and particularly welcomed the reaffirmation of Russian determination to secure the unconditional and indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Russian ambassador, who argued that all nuclear weapon states should be working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and, in the meantime, should make a commitment not to increase their existing nuclear armaments or to put into service new sorts of strategic weaponry?
    Mr. Rifkind: We recognise the desirability of working towards nuclear disarmament, but we must also be realistic and realise that nuclear technology cannot be disinvented. It is necessary to ensure that any progress in the direction recommended by the hon. Gentleman is based on a verification procedure that ensures that all countries observe the new requirements, otherwise the world would be much more dangerous.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the dispersal of the nuclear arms of the former Soviet Union? Is he taking action with Russia to contain that?
    Mr. Rifkind: After the break-up of the Soviet Union, there were nuclear weapons in Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, as well as in the Russian Federation itself. Thanks to the measures that have been taken in the past few years, that situation seems to have been resolved—particularly as a result of the Ukraine agreeing to carry out its obligations as a non-nuclear power.

    Courts Martial
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the system of courts martial within Her Majesty's armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [14628]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Service Discipline Acts are updated every five years by an Armed Forces Bill. The next such Bill is due in the forthcoming Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Galloway: Is it not more urgent than that? A number of cases give cause for concern. My constituent Staff Sergeant John Menzies and his wife, who are in the Gallery today, are living evidence of that, as their daughter was murdered by a British soldier. The military police, who were soldiers with armbands, and the military prosecutor, who was a soldier in a wig, bungled the case and—for the interest of Tory Members—a murderer, Corporal Darren Fisher, walked free. He is still at large and is serving in Her Majesty's armed services. Is it not

    813
    about time that we overhauled the archaic, anachronistic system of military justice which is widely discredited, even within the armed services?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that the whole House will understand the grief and concern of the parents concerned and anyone who is a parent will share their deep shock at their tragic loss. Therefore, I join the hon. Gentleman in offering them my condolences.
    It is not up to Defence Ministers to reopen that particular trial. The trial has been held and the hon. Gentleman has his deeply held views about its progress and conclusion. It is not for a Minister of the Crown to reopen that trial.
    However, I believe that when we debate the Armed Forces Bill it will be perfectly appropriate—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take that opportunity—to raise the question of procedures used within the services, including the courts martial procedures. I am sure that it will be entirely appropriate to raise that matter on the Floor of the House or during Committee and I look forward to that occurring.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents who was serving in Northern Ireland has been convicted of murder while undertaking an act of duty? Does my right hon. Friend sympathise with the trial judge who suggested that an option other than murder—that of culpable homicide—should have been given to the court? Does he agree that in such cases it would be more appropriate for soldiers on active service to come before courts martial?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what he believes is an anomaly in the law. As he is aware, certain cases in Northern Ireland have been tried before the civil courts and not the courts martial. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity, which I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), of raising the issue during parliamentary debate on the Armed Forces Bill.
    Mr. Martlew: In view of the Minister's announcement today and last week that the Armed Forces Bill will come to the House in the next parliamentary Session, will he use the intervening period to consult fully with regard to court martial procedures? There is no doubt that there is a great deal of disquiet about that issue—which has been expressed today in the House—in the community and within the military. Will the Minister use that time to consult the Opposition, as we would like to take a bipartisan approach to the matter? Will the Minister guarantee that he will consult us before he lays the Bill before Parliament?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government are happy to accept that suggestion. The offer of bipartisan discussions is very much in keeping with the importance of getting the Armed Forces Bill and the service disciplinary procedures right. The legislation comes before the Parliament only once every five years, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer.

    Angola
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces deployments in Angola. [14629]
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have agreed in principle to a request from the United Nations for a logistic battalion on a three-month deployment to support the peacekeeping operation in Angola. A final decision to deploy such a battalion can be considered only once we are satisfied that a ceasefire is in force and that the necessary facilities will be provided.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there was a small British contingent in Angola before the election which carried out precisely the services that he has outlined. It is clear that, as a result of its excellent work at that time, that contingent will be welcomed back to Angola. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the commitment of that battalion will not become open-ended?
    Mr. Rifkind: I most certainly can. I said in my initial response that we are considering a three-month deployment. My hon. Friend will remember the successful deployment to Rwanda, which was also on a three-month basis. The United Kingdom believes that it would be of great value to the United Nations if it considered as a matter of course that countries which contribute towards operations should contribute much more often on a time-limited basis and then be replaced by another country, if the mission continues, or that the task should be continued in some other form or fashion. Our contribution in Angola is strictly limited to three months. The United Nations understands and accepts that.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the increasing isolationism of the United States Congress and, perhaps, the US Government? Does he also regret their condemnation and criticism of UN peacekeeping and their unwillingness to fund it? Will he take some action to try to persuade his counterpart in the United States Administration of the great importance of supporting the United Nations and its peacekeeping role for the future peace of the world?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes far too sweeping a condemnation in his remarks. I am entirely satisfied that the United States Government are very much aware of the need for them to support peacekeeping and to help fund those efforts. Indeed, even after the reforms that are to be introduced, the United States will still provide some 25 per cent. of the total United Nations cost of peacekeeping—a sum far greater than any other country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some members of Congress take a different view, and it is very important that they should fully realise the implications for the United States and for the western world as a whole if those matters are not satisfactorily resolved.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend convinced that in Angola at the moment peacekeeping is the order of the day? Have both sides—the Government and UNITA—accepted that peace is what they both want, because all my information points the other way? Will he give an assurance that in no way will our troops will deployed in a situation where they might be involved in fighting?
    Mr. Rifkind: A ceasefire has been in operation for some time and it has generally held, although not exclusively so. I can, however, reassure my hon. Friend that the proposal for any United Kingdom contribution is that it should be deployed to Lobito, on the coast, where

    815
    there has been no military action for many years, and where it should set up a logistics support structure for the United Nations and should have little likelihood of penetrating into the interior of the country. My hon. Friend's concerns are well understood and can be responded to with confidence.

    Procurement (Cost Overruns)
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions his Department has taken to reduce cost overruns in procurement purchases. [14631]
    Mr. Freeman: In the financial year 1980–81, 22 per cent. by value of our headquarters contracts were let on a cost-plus basis. Last year, the figure was 1 per cent. Hence, last year, virtually all contracts had fixed prices or arrangements to protect the Ministry against contractors' cost overruns.
    Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not accept that there are considerable cost overruns on a large number of projects, which show that his Department has lost financial control of much of the defence budget? Is that not another sign of the Government's failure in running the country?
    Mr. Freeman: It is not the case, as I am sure the whole House will appreciate, that we have lost control of the defence budget. Far from it. Our procedures identify at an early stage where there are cost overruns, which can be due to a whole number of factors. In the development of the Eurofighter, which hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench support, with new technological development—the leading edge of new technology—that very expensive aircraft has already experienced some justifiable cost increases. The hon. Lady might wish to know that the National Audit Office recently reviewed our procurement policies. It compared the Ministry of Defence with 11 other Defence Ministries in other countries and concluded that, in Britain, the Department performed relatively well and particularly well in terms of pursuit of competition.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend take it from someone who worked with the defence industry before being elected that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have no financial connection with any company in the defence industry now. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the transformation that has taken place in our defence procurement purchasing over the past 10 years has been remarkable? Does he agree that the only way to remove all risk of cost overruns is to give up altogether on taking any commercial or technical risk and accept second-rate, second-hand equipment?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that it has been this Government and this Secretary of State for Defence who have announced an augmentation—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition do not want to hear this but, last July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced an increase in the equipment budget to include highly capable aircraft and ships and artillery for the armed forces, which is among the best in the world. There is inevitably some risk in developing new weapons and weapons systems.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister not realise that he sounds remarkably complacent? When the Ministry was
    816
    asked to give information on projects to the National Audit Office, I remind him that it got the calculations wrong in eight out of its 10 responses. Is it not the case that there is an overrun of 2.7 years on projects, that 80 per cent. of them have failed to reach their targets and that, on many serious and important individual procurement projects, the Government have spent literally billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on overshoots? Is this not a catalogue of unexpected and unanticipated defence cuts, waste and inefficiency on the part of a Ministry that is better known for waste than for any other characteristic?
    Mr. Freeman: I understand why the hon. Gentleman, as an Opposition spokesman, has to attack—that is his job—but it would be much more effective if he got his facts right and concentrated on specific projects to explain the reasons why he thinks the Government have got it wrong. Broad-brush comments about a Department of waste cut no ice. The truth is that, as I said, the NAO has given us a clean bill of health. It regards our procedures as competent and efficient, which it would certainly not do under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the less than satisfactory track record of GEC in the past few years in the production of defence equipment, and especially now that we know of the waste of public money involved in the Phoenix project, will my right hon. Friend consider carrying out an audit of that company's activities in relation to the procurement of military equipment, and pay particular attention to its involvement in the ECR90 programme?
    Mr. Freeman: I would not share my hon. Friend's criticisms of GEC. It is a large and efficient defence manufacturer that employs many tens of thousands of people in the defence industrial base. As for the Phoenix programme, I assure my hon. Friend that proposals are shortly to come before Ministers to decide on the future of that project, which I know that the Select Committee on Defence is considering. We need to decide whether to cancel the project and to seek contractual damages from GEC or to continue with it but protect ourselves against any increase in costs and any diminution in our contractual position in relation to the company.

    Nuclear and Chemical Weapon Proliferation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to discourage nuclear and chemical weapon proliferation. [14632]
    Mr. Rifkind: We are currently working towards the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the effective implementation of the chemical weapons convention and are active participants in the work of the nuclear suppliers group, the missile technology control regime and the Australia group.
    Mr. Flynn: Was not the attack in Tokyo by Sarin gas a reminder of the catastrophic dangers of chemical weapons—even do-it-yourself chemical weapons—now that the materials and the technology are accessible to everyone? When will we join France, Germany and the

    817
    many other countries which fully ratified the chemical weapons convention? Does not the new world chaos now need measures to build confidence and reduce fear?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course that is important. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the chemical weapons convention has been signed by 159 states, including the United Kingdom, and ratified by 27. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for questions of ratification in this sphere, attaches considerable importance to early ratification of that treaty, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await further developments.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Secretary of State content that, as the dangers of the proliferation of those weapons grow, together with the proliferation of biological weapons, his discussions with the Home Office on civil defence and on the possible use of those dreadful weapons here, and our preparedness in the event of such use, are adequate?
    Mr. Rifkind: As my right hon. Friend would expect, of course we try to anticipate any threat that might emerge to the country's people or territory. The question of what might happen in relation to an incident in the United Kingdom is a matter for the Home Office primarily, but he can assume that if, unfortunately, any such attempt were made, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces would be able to make a significant contribution, both in preventing and deterring any such incident, and in dealing with its consequences.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Would we not be able to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation by others if we showed a little self-restraint? If the Polaris system provides an effective independent nuclear deterrent, why is it necessary to replace it with Trident and to have many times as many warheads? Would it not be right to limit Trident's deployment to the number of Polaris warheads that it is to replace, not least because it has approximately twice the range, is accurate within 250 m, and its warheads are capable of being independently targeted?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman is characteristically uninformed as to the consequences for the UK's nuclear weapons overall of the implementation of the Government's policy. I am able to inform the House that when, in the next few years, Trident takes over the sub-strategic nuclear role and the WE177 free-fall bomb is withdrawn, the UK will have 21 per cent. fewer nuclear warheads than it did in the 1970s, after the non-proliferation treaty came into effect. The total explosive power of those warheads will be some 59 per cent. lower than the 1970s figure. That clearly shows that the UK is playing its full part in the objectives to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the chemical weapons convention, which the Government have singly failed to ratify, is vital not only for international security but for the country's chemical industry? Did he note that, in that most unusual presentation to the press last week of the surrogate Queen's Speech, no announcement was made of legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention? Why not?
    Mr. Rifkind: Her Majesty the Queen will announce the Queen's Speech and no such announcement has yet
    818
    been made. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the ratification of the chemical weapons convention requires the laying of legislation before the House. The time to announce what legislation the Government have in mind is the Queen's Speech. That is not taking place today.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that proliferation is not the only problem in relation to nuclear weapons? The knowledge of how to produce such weapons is becoming more and more widespread. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Is it not right and proper, therefore, that we maintain our nuclear deterrent, and resist the siren voices of the Opposition?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The Opposition's views continue to fascinate me. They were against nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war, but now that the cold war is behind us, they try to persuade us that they are in favour of them. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will wish to take an early opportunity to clarify the Opposition's view on nuclear weapons, which is a shambles.

    Armed Forces (Deployment)
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the redeployment of armed forces when they are removed from Northern Ireland. [14633]
    Mr. Rifkind: The 5th Regiment, Royal Artillery returned from Northern Ireland on 22 March to its home base at Catterick. The prison guard force from the 1 Armoured Division Signals Regiment returned to its base in Germany in November.
    Mr. Barnes: If peace in Northern Ireland is signed, sealed and delivered, is it envisaged that any British troops will remain in Northern Ireland? Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Northern Ireland Office about the potential of the peace dividend that will come out of those developments?
    Mr. Rifkind: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is undoubtedly yes. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; therefore, it should go without saying that the armed forces of the United Kingdom will continue to be based there, just as they are in England, Scotland or Wales. What we are anxious to achieve, when the security situation requires and justifies it, is a withdrawal of armed forces from the streets of our cities in Northern Ireland so that Northern Ireland can share the situation that exists elsewhere in Great Britain. However, the Royal Irish Regiment has its home base in Northern Ireland, so I am sure that it and other forces will have a presence in the Province, as they do elsewhere.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the progressive reduction in the number of battalions deployed in Northern Ireland over the coming months, assuming that the peace holds there, will not be used as an excuse to cut the infantry battalions of the British Army?
    Mr. Rifkind: In answer to an earlier question I said explicitly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said on other occasions—that there is no possibility of any reduction in the size of our armed forces as a result of progress in Northern Ireland. Therefore, any

    819
    progress that allows us to reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland will be as good news for the armed forces as for the people of Ulster.

    Menwith Hill Station
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for right hon. and hon. Members to visit Menwith Hill station in north Yorkshire. [14635]
    Mr. Soames: No, I shall not, for the very good operational and security reasons given by my predecessor in the House on 25 March 1994.
    Mr. Madden: Is it not disgraceful that Ministers refuse to allow Members of Parliament, who are elected public representatives, and all of whom take an oath of allegiance, to visit that American spy base in north Yorkshire? Is not that disgrace equalled only by the gagging order recently issued by the Secretary of State for Defence, stopping the courts and the public from hearing that the National Security Agency of America, which controls the base, is engaged in industrial and commercial espionage to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom, and that GCHQ staff also based there are illegally tapping telephones?
    Mr. Soames: I must invite the hon. Gentleman to contain his entirely pathetic paranoia and to understand that the function of that important site is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as being of the highest importance to the United Kingdom's defence strategy. The work carried out there is extremely sensitive and valuable.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend disregard the outburst by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and recognise that the great majority of people in north Yorkshire welcome the presence of Menwith Hill, and also of RAF Fylingdales in my constituency, and that they appreciate the important part that those two installations play in upholding peace throughout the world?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining so well the great importance of those sites to the strategic security of the United Kingdom and to our allies. I know that they are valued by all who live near them and I am grateful, as those who work in them will be, for my hon. Friend's clarion support.

    Royal Arsenal Site, Woolwich
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Woolwich to discuss the future of the royal arsenal site. [14636]
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no such plans, although my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence visited the royal arsenal site on 1 November last year.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: I am sure that the Minister agrees that that site, containing 75 acres of derelict industrial land, is probably one of the largest such areas in a town centre in the United Kingdom and that its development is crucial not only to the regeneration of the locality but to the Thames gateway strategy. What progress has there been on the redevelopment, and does his Department now
    820
    accept responsibility for the restoration of the 15 listed buildings on the site? What liability does the Department accept for land contamination in the area?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; as a constituency Member, he has rightly taken a close interest in the matter. As he knows, there are two sites at Woolwich, the east and the west. The west site covers the considerable area of 76 acres, and negotiations have commenced to transfer it to English Partnerships. I hope that they will be completed shortly, and that a development plan can be finalised in consultation with the borough of Greenwich. The smaller east site does not contain listed buildings, but it is possible that the ground is contaminated. The site will be sold on the open market, and a detailed investigation of the contamination has been commissioned.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence accepts liability for site and building contamination where that is significant and has to be remedied up to the standard required by the development plan. We shall agree funding with English Partnerships, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman with regard to the listed buildings.
    Mr. Devlin: Would not this site have been entirely redeveloped by now if the quality assurance unit at Woolwich had not so tenaciously resisted being relocated to the Preston Farm industrial estate in Stockton-on-Tees? Since the facility was disbanded by the Ministry of Defence, has not the site in Stockton-on-Tees been extensively redeveloped by Teesside development corporation, bringing more jobs than if the quality assurance unit had gone there in the first place?
    Mr. Soames: I was not aware of that particular background, but, as my hon. Friend knows, an ugly queue is forming to stampede Stockton-on-Tees. Many people wish to relocate in such an excellent place, with such an admirable Member of Parliament.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department next expects to be able to make a contribution to nuclear arms reductions in furtherance of the Government's obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. [14637]
    Mr. Rifkind: We shall consider what further contribution we might be able to make to nuclear arms reductions in the light of changing international circumstances.
    Dr. Jones: This afternoon, the Secretary of State cited the withdrawal of weapons that were already reaching their retirement age as examples of the Government's contribution towards disarmament and he also gave misleading information on Trident, when he knew full well that Trident can destroy far more targets than can Polaris. Is it not clear that the Government are simply paying lip service to their obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, thus undermining its renegotiation? Why have the Government not set criteria for entering Trident in future strategic arms reduction negotiations? When will the Government stop clinging to their multi-million-pound nuclear—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's questions are far too long. If she wishes to apply for an

    821
    Adjournment debate some time, I shall look at her application sympathetically. We are in Question Time and I urge all hon. Members to put their questions briskly.
    Mr. Rifkind: The questions may have been too long, but they enabled the House to hear the true voice of the Labour party. It is perfectly clear that the Opposition Front-Bench team has been acutely embarrassed by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament sentiments which have been expressed right across the Opposition Back Benches this afternoon. I am sure that the country, as well as the House, will note that and draw the appropriate conclusion.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, had he been a member of parliamentary CND, he would have been at a great disadvantage in any negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation? Does he share my concern that not only the shadow Secretary of State for Defence but the Labour leader was a member of parliamentary CND? Does that not undermine their credibility over our nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly the case that if we want expert advice on nuclear disarmament, we have the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and, I think, half the shadow Cabinet who have been, and in some cases still are, active members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
    Dr. Reid: This one has not been a member of CND, but he still has a damn sight more concern for getting rid of nuclear weapons than that bunch sitting on the Government Front Bench. Why is the message always negative? Why did the Government refuse a moratorium on nuclear weapons? Why did they refuse to limit the number of warheads deployed on Trident? Why did they refuse to announce the number of warheads on Trident? Why do they refuse even to ratify the chemical weapons convention? Why, for once, can they not send a positive signal to encourage a successful outcome of the renegotiation of the non-proliferation treaty?
    Mr. Rifkind: I entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is one of the few who were not members of CND. [Interruption.] But why in this exchange did we get the organ grinder—[Interruption.] Why did we not get the organ grinder and have to make do with the monkey instead? The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the reduction of nuclear weapons in a nuclear world should be treated with the greatest care and caution. [Interruption.] I am glad that the most prominent ex-member of CND, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has now arrived.

    Defence Industry
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to monitor the changing size and shape of the British defence industry. [14638]
    Mr. Freeman: As one of the defence industry's major customers, my Department naturally takes a keen interest in developments that affect the size and structure of our supplier base. We therefore have regular contact with representatives of United Kingdom defence companies at all levels.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister not share my concern about the plight of the highly skilled engineers
    822
    and technicians who work in the defence industry? The Government's apathetic approach shows them no future other than to transfer skills out of Britain or to go on to the scrap heap. Why does the Minister not immediately create a defence diversification agency so that we can have short-term and long-term planned transfers into other work and keep those highly skilled personnel here in this country after the work that they have done for the defence industry?
    Mr. Freeman: We recognise the important skill that is in our defence industrial base. Defence Ministers have a responsibility for that. However, to create a defence diversification agency, which the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—said in our last debate on the Navy would merely seek to effect a culture change in industry, without the commitment of substantial—
    Dr. Reid indicated dissent.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; that clearly shows that what he suggests is dogma and a waste of taxpayers' money.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14655]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the Prime Minister tell us how education authorities such as Derbyshire can have millions cut off their education budgets in real terms and be expected to manage? Will he tell them how they can do that without sacking teachers, destroying education or increasing class sizes in the area? Many angry parents, teachers and governors in Derbyshire would like to know the answer to that. It is time now for the oracle to speak.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first one to acknowledge that the amount spent per pupil has risen over and above inflation by 50 per cent. since the hon. Gentleman's party was last in government and looking after education. I think that he would also concede that if local authorities were prepared to make education more of a priority than they do at present and if they were determined to make teachers a priority within their education budget rather than other matters, they would be able to meet the obligations that they were required to meet.
    Mr. Walden: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the interest shown by Manchester grammar school in returning to the state sector? Will he give imaginative thought to the way in which such moves could be financed, bearing in mind that building bridges across our two-nation education system is a national priority?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the question of bridges across the education system. I certainly agree with him about the need for

    823
    quality in education. I must say that I am not so enthusiastic about the Manchester proposal as my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Blair: When Sir Bob Reid, who, after all, is a supporter of rail privatisation, says that the Government's plans are intensely bureaucratic and inordinately expensive—in short, a nightmare—should that not make any sensible Government who consider the public interest think again?
    The Prime Minister: Sir Bob has expressed these views on previous occasions.
    Mr. Meacher: Is he right?
    The Prime Minister: I shall come in a second to whether he is right. Sir Bob has always argued for a monolithic, vertically integrated railway, but he was unable to persuade us that that was the right way to proceed. As the right hon. Gentleman presumably does not know, a number of other countries that have privatised their railways have adopted precisely the same model that we have adopted, and not the model proposed by Sir Bob.
    Mr. Blair: Should not Sir Bob's words carry compelling argument with the Government as he is a supporter of privatisation? Is this not just another item on the bill for Tory dogma? With prescription and water charges up at the weekend, taxes up next week and now the fiasco of rail privatisation, is it any wonder that the British people believe, and know, that they are worse off under the Tories?
    The Prime Minister: The soundbite came earlier this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman refers to dogma. The Labour party has tried to smear every privatisation we have had, just as it is trying to smear this one. As it has been wrong on every occasion in the past, it is wrong again. The reality is that the Labour party is philosophically opposed to private ownership and, while Labour remains in the pockets of the railway unions, it will continue to put the unions first and the passengers last.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities, far from complaining about what they call cuts in education, would do far better thinking carefully about the money that they have failed to raise from the rates, the community charge and the council tax? Councils such as Lambeth have arrears running at over £100 million which they have failed to collect. Are not such councils punishing pupils as a result of their incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Leader of the Opposition referred a few days ago to truancy. What the right hon. Gentleman neglected to say was that the highest level of truancy occurs in education authorities run by the Labour party, and that the only reason we know the truancy figures is because of the performance tables which we introduced and to which the Opposition objected.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the light of the Prime Minister's previous answers, will he nevertheless confirm that he has heard of the widespread concerns of parents about their children from governors who have been forced to sack teachers because of education cuts? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the face of cuts in the Government's allocation for education amounting to £50
    824
    per primary school pupil and £200 per secondary school pupil, he simply cannot dump the whole blame on to councils? Does he not realise that the country wants him to think again? Will he do so?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the concerns of parents that education is properly funded, and that is why I made the point to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about the increase in resources under the Government in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the Government's achievements in benefiting parents, pupils and teachers by changing the curriculum. Equally, he cannot deny that local authorities could do far more than they have done to seek savings without turning directly to the teacher in the classroom. What the right hon. Gentleman should be saying to people—not least his own education authority—is, "What other savings have you sought before you have gone directly to the teacher in the classroom?"
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Would my right hon. Friend allow any member of his Front-Bench team to visit convicted IRA terrorists in English prisons and to campaign to have them returned to Northern Ireland? Would he consider such action to be tough on crime, and on the causes of crime?
    The Prime Minister: The direct answer to my hon. and learned Friend is no, I would not. He makes his case clearly.
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14656]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is the first duty of a free media to report the truth irrespective of Government bullying? [Interruption.] Clearly, Conservative Members do not agree. Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues took heed of the advice of the Daily Mail and Sir Bernard Ingham and stopped whingeing?
    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to tell us on how many occasions Mr. Alastair Campbell has complained to the BBC in the past few weeks. As to her substantive question, of course I welcome truthful reporting. I always welcome it and I like seeing it.
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14657]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Maldon district council, which yesterday received nearly £22 million following the transfer of its housing stock to the Plume housing association? Is he aware that that will enable the council to improve services and to continue to set the lowest council tax in Essex? Does that not demonstrate once again that Conservative councils deliver better services at a lower cost to the council tax payer?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to Maldon, but he could equally well have referred to a very large number of Conservative authorities, which, on balance, provide a council tax that is far lower than that of authorities run by the Labour or Liberal parties. Equally,

    825
    I congratulate Maldon on taking advantage of the policies to bring in private finance and to provide better services generally to its council tax payers. I believe that runs right the way across the gamut of local authority services. For those people who talk about the homeless, I note the very large number of empty properties in Labour-controlled authorities in inner London and in the middle of many of our great cities.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14658]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bayley: When will the Prime Minister unequivocally back Canada in its stand against unfair and ecologically disastrous Spanish fishing practices?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement immediately after Question Time.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14659]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: During my right hon. Friend's recent and successful visit to the middle east, did he have time to talk to Prime Minister Rabin about his country's unwillingness to declare that it is now a nuclear power and to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Recalling my right hon. Friend's excellent work in getting the United Nations Security Council to approve resolution 687, which called for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, how will that be achieved if Israel cannot be persuaded to change its mind?
    The Prime Minister: We did discuss that and a range of other matters, and I made it clear in my meetings that we believe that the future of the non-proliferation treaty is extremely important and we hope that everyone possible will ensure that it can be extended indefinitely. The indefinite and unconditional extension of that treaty at the conference in April and May would be in the best interests of everyone, not only in the middle east but in other parts of the world where there is equal difficulty in persuading participants to sign up to the treaty.
    Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14660]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Church: Would the Prime Minister like to take this public opportunity to confirm that the position of the chairman of his party is unassailable?
    The Prime Minister: I have told my right hon. Friend to take no notice whatever of the current hubbub and that it goes with the job, as do silly questions like that.
    Mr. Alexander: As we are marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war this year, will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the amendment that was recently passed to the Pensions Bill in another place and restore to war widows the right to a war widows pension, even though they have been widowed or divorced from a second husband?
    The Prime Minister: We are considering the amendment that was passed in another place the other day and a second amendment that was also passed there and will make our decisions known when the matter returns to the House.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14661]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that when he and his Ministers decide, in the next few days, about the future of Guy's hospital, they will take account of current circumstances, which are that a building that has just cost £154 million to build, Philip Harris house, is waiting to be used for the benefit of the health service? Will they decide to use that building and not to close an accident and emergency unit in less than four years' time, because the circumstances that justify its continuing existence may be just the same then as they are now?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the question that he proposed to ask this afternoon. As he said, there has been a consultation about the future of services at Guy's and St. Thomas's, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to make her decisions known shortly. I know that she will take into account the views of everyone concerned and what the hon. Gentleman said, including his remarks about Philip Harris house.

Fishing Rights (Dispute)
3.30 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the fisheries dispute between the European Union and Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): Our policy is to use our unique position as a member both of the European Union and the Commonwealth to help broker a resolution of this dispute. Canada is right to say that much more effective enforcement is necessary in the disputed fishery, but this will be achieved only through negotiation, and not through unilateral action on the high seas. We must also settle fair catch shares. The need for a settlement is urgent. Both sides should show restraint in order to give the talks a chance of success.
Dr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the fundamental and paramount need is to conserve fish stocks and prevent over-fishing? Will he acknowledge that fish recognise neither national frontiers nor 200-mile fishing limits? Does he also accept that international agreement and international law are the only way to meet conservation objectives?
As the disagreement between the European Union and Canada on turbot quotas is a major factor, will the Minister confirm that the European Union is prepared to continue to talk to Canada to settle that disagreement? Does he accept that equally important is the question of the small-mesh net? If the small-mesh net which Canada has put on display in New York is Spanish, can he tell us whether that net is illegal, and whether the Canadians were justified in taking action?
Given that the European Union is in dispute with Canada, not the UK, may I finally ask three short questions? Is the Minister still in full agreement with the EU position? Is he completely satisfied that it is not legally defective and that the EU account of events is true? In view of the concern expressed last time the Minister of State made a statement to the House on this issue, does he recognise that a substantial number of hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about Spanish fishing practice? Will he report back to the House immediately if the truth is not being fully told and if the EU position is not legally foolproof?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has not got it quite right, although some elements are nearly right.
The dispute is not now about the amount of fish that should be caught. That was agreed in September, when the new total allowable catch was set at 27,000 tonnes. The Spanish asked fora higher quota, but, as far as I know, the Canadians did not say that it should be lower. They are happy with the agreement. The dispute is not about the amount of fish that should be caught, but about who should catch the fish. Negotiations have broken down on that matter.
The North-west Atlantic Fisheries Organisation—NAFO—agreed a share-out which seemed to be unfair to the EU. Under the procedures, the EU was allowed to set a unilateral quota for this year and to go on arguing. That sort of thing happens in fisheries around the world, and it should be settled at the negotiating table.
828
The real argument is about enforcement. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), we have a great deal of sympathy for the Canadians. The House and other nations know that there are questions about Spanish obedience to the rules in many fisheries. The way to settle that is by establishing a proper regime, which is properly enforced.
We have no difficulty with some of the views that the Canadians are putting forward about that, but cutting the nets off a big trawler is dangerous and illegal. The Canadians are in danger of ruining a good case by that kind of action. I do not think anyone in the House, let alone anyone who represents a fisheries constituency, would want to encourage that kind of action on the high seas.
The argument is about how to enforce a proper regime. We must get people back to the table, and we must get an agreement. Both sides—I say this advisedly—would do well to cool the political rhetoric and get back to talking. If the hon. Gentleman is serious, as many are in the House, about the conservation of fish and reaching a proper agreement in the north Atlantic, what we need is a proper agreement that is properly enforced. That means reaching a legal agreement first.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the emphasis on enforcement. In that regard, what role have our inspectors played, in conjunction with the EU? Is it correct that they inspected the Spanish vessel that was initially involved in the dispute and, if so, what was the outcome of that inspection?
While our sympathies are entirely with the Canadians on the question of enforcement and the need for proper protection, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Canadians have wrong-footed themselves by arresting that trawler in the first place and cutting nets? Does my right hon. Friend also agree, however, that the European Commissioner has gone completely over the top in her reaction to the situation? We must now direct all our efforts to getting the parties around the table to start talking, so that the problem is settled in accordance with the rule of law.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend speaks for common sense and with a real understanding of the situation on behalf of everyone in the House. He is quite right. He knows far more about the details than I do, but I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "So do we."] There are Opposition Members who know about them, too. I believe that cutting the wires of a big trawler could have capsized the boat or killed someone. In that case, the entire moral advantage that the Canadians have established would have been lost in one go.
I agree with my hon. Friend that some of the language used by the European Commissioner is intemperate and unwise. It would be advisable for her, and perhaps advisable for some of the Canadian spokesmen, to cool their language.
On my hon. Friend's specific point about British fisheries inspectors, the situation has not been quite correctly reported. A British official working for the Commission was sent by it to inspect the Estai when she returned from the north Atlantic fishery. He was not a British fisheries inspector as such. I believe that he made certain reports to the Commissioner, but we have not seen those in detail.

829
I advise the House to be a little careful about endorsing any such reports until we have seen them in detail. It is quite a long way across the Atlantic.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister must know that British fishermen have for some time been complaining about Spanish malpractice such as false holds and small-mesh nets. Does he accept that the reason that the Canadians enjoy so much support from the fishing industry is that they have shown a bit more vigour in enforcement than we have witnessed from the European Union? Using those incidents, what steps is he taking in the EU to tighten up the enforcement regime? Does he accept that, if illegal fishing is going on, irrespective of the flag of the vessel that carries it out, the international community should back proper enforcement of fisheries conservation rules?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. We should back tougher enforcement of proper rules. However, by definition, as soon as one succumbs to the tempting argument in favour of taking unilateral action and, formally, illegal action, all that work is lost. I believe that, from that dispute, we can obtain a tougher enforcement regime in that fishery, which will be a precedent for tougher enforcement in fisheries nearer home, and that is a prize that we should go for.
If we end up weakening international law as a result of all that, our fishermen will be at least as vulnerable as anyone else. Hon. Members should remember the tuna fishery incident last year when there was illegal cutting of our nets by Spaniards. If we were to start endorsing that type of action, we would not do our fishermen any good.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Bearing in mind the fact that Canada is a country that has never let Britain down when we have been in trouble, is the Minister aware that there is some disappointment and a great deal of anger in Canada and Britain that the Government have been presented as having little sympathy with the Canadians, who are in danger of having their fishing eradicated? Will the Minister make it abundantly clear that we are well aware that Spanish fishermen have illegally destroyed fishing grounds in many other regions, and will he stand 100 per cent. behind Canada in trying to solve what is a real problem, from which we cannot run away?
Mr. Waldegrave: No one in the House needs to be reminded of their sympathy for Canada. Newfoundland was discovered from my constituency. [Interruption.] I have to apologise to the hon. Member—it was. The Canadian fisheries protection vessel that cut the lines was named after a relation of mine. There is plenty of sympathy on both sides of the House with the Canadians.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, if he reads the wise words of some of the Canadian fishermen, he will discover that they know very well that they largely destroyed their own cod stocks. They are now serious about conservation. They are right to ask the rest of us to join in being more serious about conservation, but the way to do that is to agree total allowable catches and enforce them, not to do things unilaterally. They have made their argument. We should
830
continue the negotiations. We should obtain a regime that can be enforced and that will benefit not only those fisheries but other fisheries.
Mr. Peter Shore: In view of the real danger of an armed clash between Canadian and Spanish warships in the north Atlantic, will the Minister make it plain where Britain stands in the dispute about the fisheries between Canada and the European Union? Specifically, will he make it plain that he dissociates himself entirely from the decision made by the European Union to suspend negotiations—a decision that was announced as recently as today? Will he make further urgent representations to the Spanish Government to withdraw their warships from the area?
Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the discussions continue; they certainly should. We stand for returning two close allies of ours, both members of NATO, to sensible negotiations round the table. They are both big countries. Canada is the seventh biggest economy in the world; Spain is the eighth. That type of dispute should be solved by proper negotiation by serious countries of that type. We stand for telling both to cool the rhetoric. We wish the Spaniards to pull back from the fishing grounds to give the talks a chance and the Canadians not to pursue unilateral action on the high seas.
There is obviously a negotiating position in play between both sides. The type of rhetoric that is being displayed, to some extent in Canada, and in the House from time to time, is not especially helpful in obtaining the type of long-term agreement that will be brokered, I believe, if only people will return to the table.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the issue is enforcement? If he does agree, does he not accept that a useful first step would be to make a comparison between the British Register of Shipping, held by the Marine Safety Agency, and Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which demonstrates a wide use of hidden holds, larger engine sizes and all the rest? It is perfectly clear that the French, the Spanish and some other nationalities in the European Union have been cheating consistently for a long time. We have the opportunity to do something about that. Will he agree to do so?
Mr. Waldegrave: I, too, read the interesting story in The Sunday Telegraph about the comparison between the Lloyd's register engine sizes and the declared engine sizes of the Spanish shipping fleet. There is something to follow through there—it is a useful piece of work.
My hon. Friend is right to say, as I said before, that out of the episode we can obtain a greater worldwide commitment to the enforcement of proper regimes—I believe that our fishermen will gain from that. It will not benefit us to appear to endorse unilateral action on the high seas. What will the House say if the Spanish unilaterally extend out into the tuna waters and say that they have decided to enforce their own regime over tuna on the international high seas and exclude our fishermen? What sort of moral position would the people who are making easy comments today find themselves in then?
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the eyes of the international community, the Icelandic Government did not lose the moral case when their coastguard vessels chopped the gear away from British trawlers. I know the industry, and I believe that the

831
Canadians will win the moral case. I know of no Scottish fisherman with sympathy for the Minister's position or, especially, the Spanish position.
Surely, in order to deal with international fisheries disputes, we need an international police force, perhaps under the United Nations blue flag. Will the Minister honour the promise that he made to me about Spanish vessels and ensure that United Kingdom waters are policed as toughly as the Canadians and Norwegians police theirs?
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that it would be practical for an international police force to operate under the United Nations, as that would take until Doomsday to organise. We have an opportunity to set up an enforcement operation under the NAFO, with observers on the boats. The Canadians have made that proposal, which we support and which can be negotiated.
The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the industry. I do not know what he thinks my position is on the Canadians' moral position. I made it clear earlier that I thought that the Canadians were in danger of ruining their strong moral position by taking action that no fisherman on the high seas would support—the hon. Gentleman's constituents no more than anyone else.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Given that emotions on the issue are running high in my part of the world, and given our long and important traditional links with Canada, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Canadian high commissioner has expressed his thanks to the United Kingdom for the way in which we have conducted ourselves throughout the matter?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is true—and I am grateful for it—that the Canadian high commissioner today expressed his gratitude to the British Government for the efforts that we have been making towards a negotiated outcome that will stick.
To return to the previous question, the conservation of the stocks on the Grand Banks clearly needs co-ordinated management. No one would argue about that, but how should it be done? I beg the House to remember that we are not talking about the amount of fish caught, which has already been agreed.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In recognising that recent events have focused clearly on the practices of the Spanish fishing fleet, does the Minister also accept the need to look at the accession agreements pertaining to Spain and Portugal? It seems that, if the accession agreements are not changed, we could have a free-for-all in western waters by 1 January 1996. That matter must be addressed seriously.
In that context, what representations is the Minister making to the Commission to ensure that agreement can be reached before the June Council? Is he looking at the text of the framework regulations that will be discussed? It is important that we sort the matter out before the Spanish take over the presidency on 1 July.
Mr. Waldegrave: An April meeting of the Fisheries Council will seek to reach agreement on those matters in a timely fashion. The hon. Lady knows that the accession agreements were fundamentally settled 10 years ago. There will not be a free-for-all, because we negotiated
832
additional protection—although not as much as I would have liked—in our western waters which will prevent that from occurring.
The fundamental point remains the enforcement of whatever agreements may be made. That is where there is a prize to be won from this dispute: I believe that the lessons to be learned about enforcement will prove very useful to us in providing a precedent which we can apply elsewhere in the world.
Sir Donald Thompson: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Table at which he stands is a gift from Canada. Will he ensure that the multiplicity of agreements, negotiated both bilaterally and through the Economic Community, that exist in every ocean of the world are enforced properly? Will he and his Department always react first in support of those people who are trying to enforce those very difficult agreements?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is not quite correct: the Dispatch Box at which I stand was the gift of New Zealand. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said the Table."] The Table—I am happy to acknowledge the fundamental support from Canada underneath the Dispatch Box.
My hon. Friend is correct, but the Canadians want—and we all need—a legally enforceable agreement to conserve stocks in that fishery and to enforce catch sizes within the allowable limits agreed by the scientists. The Canadians have raised those issues very effectively, but now they are in danger of diminishing respect for the law itself. It is not in their own long-term interests to seek to improve the law unilaterally. We need better laws which are better enforced; we do not want to return to the old days of unilateral action.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does the Minister agree that the use of small-mesh nets is bad fishing practice as well as bad ecology? Will he inform the House how else the Canadian Government could throw the world spotlight on that unacceptable Spanish fishing practice if they did not seize those nets and show them to the world? When will the Government support Canada in its ecologically based fight to preserve fishing stocks in the north Atlantic?
Mr. Waldegrave: A proper enforcement regime in the north Atlantic fishery, which enables an observer to bring a ship to the nearest port for inspection if there is a serious allegation such as fishing with illegal nets, is the way forward. That is the kind of suggestion that is on the table for negotiation. As I have said several times today, the Canadians have been effective in bringing the issue into the world spotlight, but they should not blow their achievement by doing things which are not only illegal but dangerous.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend please save himself a great deal of political embarrassment, and save Her Majesty's Government needless political obloquy, by recommending to his right hon. Friends that the Government should withdraw from the common fisheries policy, under which we find ourselves needlessly embroiled in a dispute which has nothing to do with us? We should concentrate on protecting our fishing communities at home, conserving the fish stocks in our own waters and encouraging our good Canadian friends to do the same.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is paradoxical to suggest that a simple solution to international disputes would be to

833
return to unilateral national competition. The Canadians are not asking for what my hon. Friend is arguing: they require an enforceable international regime in that fishery, which would cover the Poles, Cubans, Russians, Bulgarians and others. That is the way forward, and it will not be achieved by countries attempting to police their own zones without international co-operation.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that these fish wars are likely to continue as long as so many fishermen seem to be short-sighted, blinkered and selfish, and prepared to carry on destroying fish stocks and, ultimately, their own jobs and the industry as well? European Union ships are fishing illegally off the west coast of Africa. Will the Minister also remind Mr. Tobin, the Canadian Minister, that, having destroyed the cod stocks in Newfoundland, it is ridiculous and unacceptable to talk about a seal cull, because to blame seals for the ridiculous behaviour of fishermen really is the last straw?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in widening the scope to one of his other great concerns—animal welfare. His fundamental point, however, is right. I do not blame the individual fishermen, but technology has now given such power to the fishermen of the world, and will continue to give even greater power, so that, unless there are proper agreements that are properly policed and a proper share-out, we will see a classic case of what economists call the tragedy of the commons written on a global scale. That is why it must be done by agreement.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present dispute between Canada and Spain shows clearly the cavalier attitude of the Spanish towards fish stocks, be they in the high seas or elsewhere? Does he further agree that the way forward is not only to ensure enforcement of common fishing policies but to ensure that we have efficient sanctions against those who do not abide by the rules, in the form of a reduction in quota year by year until those transgressors are not allowed to fish at all?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is on the right track: on how first to prove the offences, where offences have been committed, and then to have serious penalties to ensure that the policies are properly enforced. The Spanish have created problems in other fisheries in the world. They are not the only ones who break fisheries rules—let us be honest about that—but they do have a huge modern fleet. They are tough fishermen, and they have broken rules in different places in the past. A Spanish-owned, British-flagged ship was fined a considerable sum just a couple of weeks ago in the British courts.

Points of Order
3.57 pm
Several hon. Members: On a point of order.
Madam Speaker: Let me see how many hon. Members want to raise points of order, then I shall know where to go first. All those who were not called at Question Time, is that right?
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a serious point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and in view of the recent decision by the BBC to broadcast four hours of debate from the Labour party conference on clause IV, just before the district council elections, have you received any notification from the BBC that, to balance the situation, it intends to broadcast four hours of Conservative speeches; or do you intend to launch an inquiry into this very serious issue?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Last Thursday, Madam Speaker, you curtailed debate on 1'affaire Cantona, under the sub judice rule. Will you look into the sub judice rule, because, since last Thursday and, indeed, before, throughout the case, there were breaches of that rule by the press and the sound media? In fact, over the weekend, journalists have been suggesting what might happen in the Appeal Court on Friday. Surely what is good for the House should be good for the people out there, who I believe have influenced the case more than they should have done.
Madam Speaker: The House has no authority in what the press may report in terms of the sub judice rule. We have our own sub judice rules, which have been imposed on me by the House, and I have to carry out those rules.
Mr. Tony Marlow: You may well know that the gallant British fishing fleet, out of support for the Canadians, who are seeking to conserve fish stocks on behalf of all of us, has decided to fly on its boats the maple leaf. Would it be in order for the House, in support of the British fishermen, to fly the maple leaf from the Victoria Tower?
Madam Speaker: That question should perhaps be referred to the Administration Committee.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have seen reports of yet another national health service scandal as a woman giving birth to premature twins had to travel 84 miles to find intensive care incubators. What exactly are the Secretary of State for Health's responsibilities, and does she intend to explain to the House the daily crises in the NHS?
Madam Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, there has been no indication from the Government that they are prepared to make a statement on these matters. The hon. Lady may, of course, try her luck at catching my eye during Health questions and raise those matters in that way.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that a number of Conservative Members have been criticising the BBC for the way in which individual

835
journalists have been asking questions of Ministers on radio and television. I suggest that they are raising what is an issue of concern to many of us, which is that the BBC has clearly noted that parliamentary replies are such in these times that Parliament itself is being denied information in parliamentary answers, and that we, as Members of Parliament, have become increasingly reliant on journalists to ask questions and secure answers in the national media which we cannot get in Parliament.
In light of that fact, and following the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who mentioned an inquiry, may I ask you, while recognising that your powers are limited in respect of answers given by Ministers, to consider the whole issue, given that two of my hon. Friends have now made a complaint—
Madam Speaker: Order. The point of order is whether I am willing to consider the answers given by Ministers to parliamentary questions. It is for Back Benchers to continue to probe and question Ministers to get the answers that they require. It is not a matter for me, as Speaker, as I have no control or authority over the answers given by Ministers. It is part of the cut and thrust of the House and the challenge for hon. Members to pursue matters with Ministers if they feel that they are not receiving satisfactory replies.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On that same matter—
Madam Speaker: No. There can be no further point of order on that matter.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter reported in The Guardian today. I was shocked to learn from a reply from the Financial Secretary that £136 million of taxpayers' money has been used to advertise privatisation share sales. At no point in any of the debates on the various privatisations was it apparent that sums of that magnitude were to be expended. I seek your guidance as to how I can pursue this matter, as there is legitimate public interest in it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady may like to consider asking parliamentary questions, or to pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate, and use the Order Paper in that way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How far along is the procedure regarding the early release of documents on which ministerial statements are made? Are
836
you satisfied that the negotiations are gaining ground? Too often, statements are made before the documents to which the statements refer are released from the Vote Office. I do not expect the statement itself to be released, but it would be helpful if the documents were released a couple of hours before the statement was made.
Madam Speaker: Arrangements have been in hand for some time to provide that the documents—not, as the hon. Gentleman understands, the statements themselves—are available in the Vote Office an hour or an hour and a half before a statement is made. It is usually up to the Minister involved to lay down the time when he will put the documents in the Vote Office, but they are there in advance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, he should let me know about it. I shall take it up, and see if I can improve matters.
Mr. Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any representations from the Secretary of State for the Environment about making a statement on the report in The Guardian today about the threat to marine life in the Irish sea? The dumping of 25,000 tonnes of toxic waste and chemical weapons, including nerve gas, arsenic bombs and toxic seed coverings, has rightly been described as an "environmental time bomb". Does not the House have a right to a statement about the extent of the threat and the environmental impact?
Madam Speaker: The Government have not informed me that they wish to make a statement today on that matter. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members know of statements ahead of time by means of the annunciators? We all know by 1 o'clock if statements will be made.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to a parliamentary answer that was sneaked out last Wednesday? It said that, for the first time, through Government Departments, the intelligence and security services and the nuclear industry would have direct access to the police national computer. That has enormous implications for civil liberties and for an independent and non-centralised police force. Surely that information should not have been sneaked out in a parliamentary answer in that way.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman objects to that, he should take it up with the Ministers concerned. That is not a point of order for me. No breach of our procedures or Standing Orders has occurred. The hon. Gentleman may table parliamentary questions, raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, or use an early-day motion to bring the matter to Ministers' attention.

Insolvency Commission
4.5 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the regulation of insolvency practitioners.
The Bill sets up an insolvency commission. It is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has two purposes. First, it aims to ensure that the insolvency system protects not only creditors but jobs, and, where possible, that insolvent companies are able to continue trading. Secondly, it restores confidence in the insolvency practitioners industry and outlaws people who, sadly, are found to be either inefficient or unprofessional.
The first I heard of the problems in some parts of the insolvency industry was from a Mr. Carpenter in my constituency. Although he put his company into voluntary liquidation, he found that, on assets realised of £180,000, the insolvency practitioners charged him no less than £50,000 to wind it up. He is still making a complaint through the machinery of the insolvency practitioner industry. That case has been delayed some three years.
I am not saying that that case is necessarily typical, but such anecdotal evidence shows that, in a minority of cases, the constructive approach that Kenneth Cork wanted for our insolvency legislation in 1986 is not necessarily being followed through. He said:
"The purpose of bankruptcy is not to punish the debtor, but on the contrary, to protect him from his creditors".
Administrative receivership was introduced to do that and to save jobs and companies. The reason is that legislation is heavily weighted towards the practitioner and away from the company and people who are made insolvent. For instance, insolvency practitioners have a duty of care not to stakeholders but to the creditors for whom they are asked to bring in a petition. They have a statutory monopoly.
In the main, all but 150 of the 1,961 insolvency practitioners have no obligation to be audited in public, as is the case with most companies. When a company goes into liquidation, directors lose the right to have information on what is happening, and thereby the opportunity to comment on the efficiency or otherwise of insolvency practitioners. A recent survey showed that no fewer than 62 per cent. of company directors did not even know that a petition had been brought to wind up the company until the petition had reached the court.
Under section 27 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the powers of creditor committees are more formal than real. The 1990 Charnley-Davies case said that there is no jurisdiction over insolvency practitioners' negligence. The Bankruptcy Association has told me that, when one is made bankrupt during insolvency, one is in a highly emotional state. One often loses one's home. As a result, one is not in a position to ask insolvency practitioners the questions that one might wish to ask.
In the main, the vast majority of companies involved in the insolvency profession do a sensible and proper job, but the actions of a small minority are unacceptable. In 1993, the Select Committee on Social Security commented in relation to the winding up of the Maxwell company that £50 million was paid in fees to insolvency practitioners. As a result, the Committee called for a review of procedures for monitoring the progress of insolvencies.
838
Various studies have been made of the failings of the present system. In particular, there is criticism of the practice of banks appointing reporting accountants who subsequently re-emerge as administrators of the company. The dual role means that those accountants' original reports may not have been as objective as they should have been. In other words, people go by the rule but not by the spirit of the code of professional ethics. It is significant that, when the Royal Bank of Scotland decided that nobody would be allowed to act in two capacities, the number of administrations for which it was responsible fell by 60 per cent.
The level of fees, too, is often rightly criticised. In one case, £2.5 million-worth of assets cost £850,000 in fees. Another insolvency practitioner apparently charged £2,500 for six hours' work. In 1992, the Financial Times carried a report about the insolvency service showing that half of all insolvency practitioners failed fairly seriously to meet the statutory requirements. Yet, sadly, that failure has not been met with any great disciplinary action within the industry, which is self-regulating. In the eight years between 1986 and 1994, only five insolvency practitioners were struck off.
In my view, one of the reasons for all that is the inadequacy of the system of self-regulation within the industry. The system is diffuse—there are seven associations responsible for the monitoring and validation of qualifications in the industry—and there is a complicated complaints procedure, which is unwieldy and takes far too long. Although, last year, the joint industry monitoring unit was set up, only the chartered accountants and the Law Society belong to it. The certified accountants refused to join.
The Institute of Insolvency Practitioners has said that the unit has
"no power whatsoever for independent action on any problems it may find during inspection".
So everything goes back to the self-regulating individual bodies that have proved too reluctant to take action against inadequate practice in the past. That is plainly unsatisfactory, and it is disappointing that, in their response to the Social Security Select Committee, the Government said:
"We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to undertake a wider-ranging review of this particular area".
I do consider it necessary to undertake such a review, which would achieve two aims. First, it would improve and promote good practice within the profession. Secondly—to be fair, this is equally important—a review would diminish the credibility gap that too often affects the proper, hard-working, efficient and skilled practitioners who make up the vast majority of those in the profession today.
I suggest setting up an independent insolvency commission. It would be paid for by the profession, so it would not be a charge on the taxpayer, and it would have lay members and a lay chairman. The commission would take over the handling of complaints and set up an insolvency ombudsman, as was suggested by the Cork and the Justice committees. It would also carry out inspections, take over the powers of the joint industry monitoring unit and ensure that inspections were consistent, and validate qualifications within the profession—although much progress has been made already in that regard.

839
The commission could also carry out disciplinary action, removing that task from the individual associations that now, where necessary, validate insolvency practitioners. That, I hope, would mean a far more rigorous disciplinary regime than exists at present.
Whatever the fate of my Bill, those proposals should be seriously considered when the Government next review company law—as, indeed, was suggested to me by hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Tim Smith, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. John Maxton and Mr. Peter Butler.

Insolvency Commission
  INSOLVENCY COMMISSION
  Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to improve the regulation of insolvency practitioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
Orders of the Day
  Disability Discrimination Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Disability Discrimination Bill
    New clause 9

      ACCESS TO INFORMATION
      '.—(1) It is unlawful for a provider of information to discriminate against a disabled person—

      (a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any information which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;

      (b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 15 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such information;

      (c) in the standard of information which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or

      (d) in the terms on which he provides information to the disabled person.

      (2) For the purposes of this Part a person is a provider of information if he is concerned with the provision, whether directly or indirectly, to the public or a sector of the public, of information necessary to the purchase, maintenance and use of services.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.14 pm
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 77.
      No. 33, in clause 15, page 11, line 6, after 'services', insert
      'or a provider of information'.
      No. 34, in page 11, line 8, after 'service', insert 'or of information'.
      No. 35, in page 11, line 39, after 'service', insert 'or of information'.
      No. 44, in page 11, line 40, after 'services', insert
      `or a provider of information'.
      No. 36, in page 11, line 42, after 'service', insert 'or such information'.
      No. 37, in page 11, line 43, after 'service', insert 'or the provider'.
      No. 38, in page 11, line 48, after 'services', insert
      `or a provider of information'.
      No. 39, in page 12, line 2, after 'services', insert
      'or a provider of information'.
      No. 40, in page 12, line 8, after 'services', insert
      'or a provider of information'.
      No. 41, in page 12, line 11, after 'services', insert
      'or a provider of information'.
      No. 42, in page 12, line 19, at end insert—
      `(cc) information of a prescribed description'.
      No. 43, in page 12, line 23, after 'services', insert
      `or one provider of information'.
      Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to move new clause 9 in the early part of today's debate. I hope that we shall make some progress and that the Government will be responsive to the points made. Several aspects of the matters covered by the new clause were problematic in Committee and at earlier stages.
      The new clause deals with the avoidance of discrimination in the provision of services, with particular regard to information that a disabled person needs concerning those services. It is absolutely fundamental, to be able to benefit from a service, that a disabled person knows that the service exists and how and where to get it. Without the availability of that information, the disabled person cannot take advantage of services or the provision of goods. Discrimination in services, therefore, may not arise because it is secondary. Clearly, if a service cannot be used, the discrimination has already occurred. To deny disabled people knowledge and information of what is available is the most fundamental discrimination.
      The Bill is concerned with discrimination in a number of areas, many of which we discussed yesterday, such as education, shop services, transport, leisure and employment. How can, for example, a deaf person have access to educational information transmitted by the spoken word, such as on the radio or the television, without text to go with it? How can he have access to information by telephone? Many services are now provided over the telephone. How can a blind person or a person with a visual impairment catch a train if he or she cannot read the timetable? How can such people avoid electrocuting themselves with machinery if they cannot read the instructions? How can they apply for a job if they cannot read the advertisements? The purpose of the new clause is to cover such areas and to secure an effective right of access to information for disabled people, especially those with a sensory impairment, such as sight or hearing loss.
      The matter clearly concerns the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Indeed, I am obliged to it for much of the background information for this debate and I am especially grateful to Alun Thomas, its parliamentary officer, whom I think a number of my hon. Friends have met. Alun is known to me because he worked for us as a researcher in Parliament before taking his present job. I know that, with his own visual impairment, people could easily have assumed that he was not capable of the sort of detailed reading and background work of a parliamentary researcher.
      Given the right lighting, the right-sized print and the computer services available these days, Alun did an excellent job. His ability to do so could have been denied—not only by ourselves but by others who might have been considering employing him—because of discrimination based on a perceived disability. It is an example of people seeing the disability rather than seeing the ability, which is what this Bill is all about.
      According to research undertaken by the RNIB, at least 500,000 people in the United Kingdom cannot read ordinary-sized print. In practice, that means a denial of access to information, such as mail, dosage advice on medical items or use-by labels on food, which fully
      842
      sighted people take for granted. For many people with visual impairment, access to such information is a problem. Of the 1 million blind and partially sighted people in the UK, almost half live alone and 90 per cent. are over the age of 65. Many visually impaired people are often isolated in their homes, seldom receiving visitors, with a diminishing number of friends and finding it difficult to get out and about on their own. People in those circumstances should not, and often cannot, rely on a friendly neighbour to read their bank statement, council tax bill or other confidential information.
      The Bill introduces two new rights that we hope will lead to more freedom of choice for disabled people. The first hurdle for blind and partially sighted people in exercising their rights under the Bill is the difficulty in obtaining information in a usable form. For example, finding a job is made immensely difficult for visually impaired people by lack of information that they can readily access. One person told the RNIB:
      "I'm looking to change my career at the moment but it's really difficult because the information I need is only in print."
      That brings home the fact that access to work is made that much more difficult. Discrimination takes place before the question of applying for a job has even arisen because visually impaired people are unable to obtain information about jobs.
      A deaf-blind person reliant on braille as a means of communication told the RNIB that while he had persuaded his local council to provide his council tax bill in braille, any information unrelated to the council getting money, including information about council services, was sent in print. In practice, that meant that the person had to overcome a hurdle before deciding which swimming pool to use or finding out the opening hours of the local library.
      Why is the new clause necessary? The success or failure of the Bill will hinge on whether it can help to deal with the instances of direct and indirect discrimination faced by disabled people in their daily lives. For wheelchair users and those with mobility difficulties, discrimination is often most acute in the context of access to buildings and vehicles. For visually impaired people, discrimination is often caused in the first instance by the lack of accessible information.
      Will the Bill mean that visually impaired people such as a shareholder in Northern Electric will receive information about that company on tape without having to expose the company's reluctance to do so in the media? Will it mean that a visually impaired person will receive assistance from the local supermarket to identify items on shelves so that he can shop at a time of convenience to him and find the bargains of the week? Will it mean that no one will receive a renewal application form from his council for his blind person's travel pass in print and not in braille?
      I have described some of the practical difficulties faced by people who have visual impairments. Research proves the case for new clause 9. Research conducted by the RNIB and published in the document entitled "Seeing it our way" discovered how access to information had changed the lives of visually impaired people. One person said:
      "I get the Radio Times in braille, which I would be totally lost without. Now I don't need to ask anyone what is happening on `Neighbours'".

      843
      That is a day-to-day practical example of something that is meaningful to people in their everyday lives.
      Research also revealed how the lack of accessible information hampered the daily lives of blind and partially sighted people. One of them said:
      "The Council said that if I wanted to be rehoused because of my sight problem I'd have to fill in an application form. But the form is so tiny I can't read it!"
      Goodness knows, many of us who do not consider ourselves to have a massive visual impairment find difficulty with many of the forms that are put before us. One suspects that the size of the print is used as a deterrent to stop people following things through.
      Other research undertaken by the RNIB, published in February in the report entitled "Second class citizen", revealed how difficult it was for visually impaired people to obtain access to information. More than half of councils in London are unable to provide council tax bills in formats other than small print. That most certainly should not be so.
      Although there are pockets of good practice such as in the Department of Social Security and its agencies, the performance of Government Departments is very poor. There is a distinct lack of a co-ordinated approach to serving the needs of visually impaired people in many Government Departments.
      A report in 1993 launching the RNIB campaign for accessible information entitled "See it right" also revealed many examples of good and bad practice in the provision of information. Examples of good practice included the availability of the Boots pharmaceutical catalogue in braille, the introduction of a bank's braille facility and British Telecom's braille bills. I am told that British Telecom co-operated well after learning of the difficulties of reading invoices, which are now sent out in large-print versions where necessary. Those good examples are to be praised.
      There are bad examples, one of which was brought to my attention by the RNIB concerning a gentleman from London. He said:
      "I recently received my Green Employment card from the Department of Employment, this proves that I am blind for employment purposes. The renewal letter is in print … the Department know that I am a braillist because I have a braille machine on loan from them, which I also get a print renewal for."
      In other words, information is given in print form to a person who is known to the Department not to be able to use print. That must have resulted from a breakdown in the provision of services. The Bill should address that breakdown, and new clause 9 attempts to do so.
      Another example of bad practice was given by a man from Kent, who said:
      "Many of the forms I receive are unreadable, for example, an income tax form could not be completed without some assistance. If such forms could be in large print together with the literature that accompany them, much of the difficulty might be overcome."
      No one is saying that every form for every person—whether he has a visual handicap or not—needs to be in such formats, but we must ensure that there is a facility that can meet the needs of visually challenged people when necessary, particularly with regard to mail shots, which are now overwhelmingly sent out from a database.
      844
      New clause 9 is the most effective way of ensuring that the needs of visually impaired people are identified and properly addressed.
      The Government could claim that the new clause is unnecessary since access to information is already referred to elsewhere in the Bill. In a letter to the RNIB, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People confirmed that, under that right, service providers will be required to provide communication aids where reasonable and necessary to enable disabled people to use the service in question. He emphasised that where facilities for the communication and the provision of information are provided as services in themselves, they must also be made accessible where reasonable. Unfortunately, the spirit of that letter is not reflected in the wording of the Bill, although Government amendment No. 77 may help. I shall come to that in a moment.
      An unequivocal statement is needed in the Bill to counter the current ignorance of the needs of visually impaired people among information providers. The new clause would make it clear that the provision of information is a service in itself, and would recognise that gaining access to information is a prerequisite to allowing visually impaired people to exercise a meaningful choice about facilities, goods and services. It is not a matter of an auxiliary service—it is a matter of principle.
      Another objection may be that the new clause would require all information to be produced in braille, which would impose onerous obligations on service providers. In reality, the new clause would not oblige a company to produce all its internal memos in braille, large print or in parallel. The new clause clearly relates to part III of the Bill, and is subject to the test of reasonableness and the justifications for less favourable treatment for disabled people in clauses 13 and 14.
      The attitude that those objections reflect is often based on a number of misconceptions about visual impairment. Braille is a vital means of communication, but only for its 19,000 readers out of a total visually impaired population of 1 million people. The majority of visually impaired people can read print that is distinct and fairly large. Adhering to good practice in print standards would help a service provider to communicate its message much more effectively to fully sighted people. New technology has made it simpler and more cost-effective to produce braille in-house, and there are also a growing number of external transcribers. It is wrong to overstate the difficulties in providing braille for the relatively small number of people who need it.
      Another objection may be that the new clause proposes the provision of information directly or indirectly, which will mean that manufacturers that are not service providers will come under the terms of the Bill. In reality, the purpose of the inclusion of indirect providers is to acknowledge that some companies are better placed to supply acceptable information about their products, even though they are not regarded as service providers as they make their products available through a retailer.
      British Telecom, for example, will be considered a service provider under the terms of the Bill, since it sells telephones directly to the public, and will be expected to provide braille instructions for its answerphones, if requested to do so by a visually impaired customer. As the Bill stands, however, Creda would not be obliged to provide taped information about its cookers on request since its products are available only through high street

      845
      retailers. We would thus have the bizarre situation that has been suggested to the RNIB—responsibility for explaining how a cooker worked would fall on Mr. Jones, the high street shopkeeper, since he would be the service provider. Clearly, such anomalies must be sorted out.
      4.30 pm
      The rights established under the Bill must be clear for disabled person and service provider alike. As the Bill stands, the service provider is likely to be completely unaware of his or her new responsibilities to visually impaired customers. For blind and partially sighted people, the reference to information is so nebulous that there is no guarantee that they would succeed in progressing cases under the Bill. The problem of enforceability is exacerbated by the fact that the Government believe that most cases will be settled out of court under this part of the Bill.
      The new clause does not state that all information must at all times and in all places be produced in parallel in print, braille and spoken tapes. That would not be feasible, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. How could I make such a mistake? It would not be feasible to provide all information in all modes in every circumstance, but we need to ensure that the various modes are available as appropriate.
      Under the terms of the new clause, refusing to provide information if requested to do so would be illegal. In other words, thought must be given to how vital information, which is needed to avoid discrimination, can be at hand in an understandable form for those who need it. The new clause should lead people to think in advance how information can be made available for blind, visually handicapped or deaf people.
      The first part of Government amendment No. 77, which is linked with my new clause, refers to
      "access to and use of means of communication",
      which is certainly a step in the right direction; it would help deaf and deaf and blind people in particular. The second part of it, however, refers to
      "access to and use of information services",
      which is far too restrictive. We are concerned about information on services, not merely information services. We need to ensure that we do not include only the services that consist exclusively of provision of information, which is what the second half of the amendment seems to suggest. We should be concerned about information on goods and services generally.
      I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the intention behind the second half of the amendment. Perhaps the Government are trying to do what we want to achieve under the new clause, but the wording does not achieve that. What about circumstances in which the provision of information is peripheral to the main service being provided—for example, information on a credit card statement? Does Government amendment No. 77 provide that that information should be in a usable form for those who are visually impaired, as the main service is the provision of credit and not of credit card statements? The information on a railway timetable is another example—British Rail runs a rail service, not an information service.
      Those examples must be clarified. Clearly, that area needs to be tightened considerably if the Bill is to deliver the support that is needed by many hundreds of thousands
      846
      of disabled people, especially those who are visually challenged, and if they are to avoid continuing discrimination against them in the provision of goods and services. The Government clearly understand the need to strengthen the Bill because they tabled an amendment, but it does not go far enough, which is why I tabled new clause 9.
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), although if I had to explain what had happened in the last episode of "Neighbours" I, too, would have to ask someone.
      I understand fully why the hon. Gentleman has moved new clause 9 and the associated amendments. I agree that it is essential that disabled people, particularly those with visual or hearing impairments, have access to information about facilities and services.
      In constructing the right of access to goods and services in the Bill, our aim was to develop a statutory right of non-discrimination that is universal, all-embracing and applies to all providers of goods, facilities and services to the public.
      The basic structure of that right is set out in clause 12, which provides that it is unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by not providing goods, facilities and services that he provides for members of the public. I am happy to make it clear now, as I did in Committee, that the provision of information is one such service and is definitely covered by the Bill.
      Clause 15 sets out the duty on service providers to make adjustments to practices, policies and procedures to enable disabled people to access the service being provided. Subsection (5) already makes it clear that that includes providing information in accessible formats, such as on tape or via an interpreter, where that would be an auxiliary aid or service enabling a disabled person to make use of the service. The Bill thus covers the provision of information services either as a service in itself or as an adjunct to other services.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned several examples of what he meant. May I give a few examples? Timetables that help people to use the service of a transport network; leaflets that help people use the service of welfare benefits; menus that help people with restaurants; recorded information about theatres; statements about banking; directional signs about car parking; verbally communicated information in a butcher's shop; guide books in art galleries; and subtitles or voice-overs in broadcasting are all intended to fall within the scope of the Bill. I agree, however, that we may need to make that clearer and, as the hon. Gentleman noted, to achieve that we propose Government amendment No.77.
      The hon. Gentleman touched on the distinction between those examples and placing a duty on retailers or manufacturers to produce operating instructions in accessible formats. We are entering an extremely difficult area. If, for instance, we were to place a burden on manufacturers it would, first, be difficult to tie down what was meant by "instructions". For example, would the operating instructions for a CD player include the labels and knobs on the machine itself? If so, the implications for designing and bringing new products to market could be enormous.

      847
      Secondly, foreign-made products would present difficulties. Foreign manufacturers would be outside the scope of the Bill, so those which make many products for which operating instructions are most required, particularly electrical equipment, would not have to comply with a requirement to change their format.
      Thirdly, the liability on retailers would also be extremely onerous. I am not sure that we could expect supermarkets to provide information in alternative formats on all the goods that they sell.
      Those are difficult areas which even those responsible for drafting the Americans with Disabilities Act did not attempt to solve. The ADA makes no provision for accessible instructions. I am clear, however, that the Bill should cover information services, information about a service and access to and use of means of communication.
      We debated the issue at some length in Committee and I have received a number of representations, to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon referred, about including a specific reference to the provision of information in accessible formats in the Bill. I am happy that the Bill, as drafted, already makes provision for that, but I am prepared to take on board the concerns of disabled people with physical and sensory impairments, who will be most affected by the provision.
      That is why I tabled Government amendment No.77, which makes it absolutely clear that
      "access to and use of means of communication"
      and
      "access to and use of information services"
      are included in the right of access. That requirement adds to the requirement to provide information about a service, which is already contained in the Bill. I therefore believe that the amendment clarifies the position beyond doubt in a practical and sensible way, and does so within the framework of the Bill.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying how far the Government are prepared to go, but I want to ensure that we understand him properly. The Minister has said that it will be a statutory requirement to provide information services and information about services when the Bill becomes law, but that information about goods will not be subject to a similar requirement. How will a visually challenged person, who may use some electrical equipment purchased from a shop, avoid being electrocuted if the necessary information about how that piece of equipment should be used is not provided? That visually challenged person may be capable of using such machinery or equipment if he or she is provided with the relevant information. If it is not possible to provide a parallel braille or enlarged instruction set, surely some provision should be made for a fallback so that those individuals can get that information. That responsibility must lie, if not with Mr. Jones, the shopkeeper, with someone else. If we do not tackle that problem, the Bill will have a big hole in it.
      Mr. Hague: I certainly understand that problem. It would be good practice for manufacturers and retailers to ensure that information was available. One may place a legal duty on manufacturers and retailers to make information available in every case about operating
      848
      instructions and directions for use. It would be difficult, however, to differentiate between different types of goods. The problem with that legal duty is that it is extremely difficult for manufacturers to define that information and, as I have already said, many manufacturers are outside the United Kingdom and would not be subject to the law in any case. The United States Congress was unable to solve that problem when it framed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I cannot find a satisfactory way of solving it in the Bill.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon will at least be able to welcome the clarification that I have given about the purpose of the Bill. I believe that it will cover the provision of information and the means of communication. Government amendment No. 77 provides additional clarification by making it clear that information should be provided in an accessible format, whether that information is a service in itself or information about a service. That will be incorporated within the framework of the Bill if we use Government amendment No. 77 for that purpose. I hope that it will command—
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hague: I will give way, although I am on my final sentence.
      Mr. Barnes: I thought that I should get in before that last sentence.
      To what extent are a specific category of disabled people—those with learning difficulties—covered by the Bill? Certain organisations, such as People First, make considerable efforts to spread information. People First has produced a version of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in a good, readily available form. Although the terms of the new clause and the amendments are general, they may apply to the visually impaired in particular and I believe that they should also refer to those with learning difficulties. Would the Minister's analysis apply to those people?
      Mr. Hague: Most of the debate has focused on people with physical or sensory impairments, but the duty would be to provide auxiliary aids and other formats where it is reasonable to do so. It does not exclude providing information on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but a judgment must be made about where it is reasonable to do that.
      I hope that I have clarified the Government's position. We will improve the Bill if Government amendment No. 77 is accepted and I hope that it will command the support of the House.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Robin Corbett: We welcome Government amendment No. 77, although we regret that the Minister resisted a similar amendment when we tried to move one in Committee. Nevertheless, that amendment has now been tabled.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made the case exactly. The debate is another example of taking a minimalist approach. Let me give the Minister one or two examples.
      When one buys any electrical goods, it is rare for them not to include a guarantee, shaped like a concertina, that is translated into four or even six languages, not all of

      849
      them European. Many of those products are made in Japan or the far east, and those guarantees are obviously designed for the markets in which the products are sold. If such information can be provided, why cannot the Minister at least open discussions with some of the main importers of those goods to try to encourage them to make information available, on request, to people with disabilities who need it to overcome the safety problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon?
      Manufacturers had better wake up to the fact that, as in the provision of services, unless they provide such information, they will increasingly be at commercial disadvantage. There is something in it for them as well.
      Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has put it the right way, because there is certainly scope for future discussions about that. There is a great commercial incentive for manufacturers and retailers to think about supplying operating instructions. That is beyond the Bill, but I, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, and the National Disability Council would want to pursue it. It is another step to say that we should incorporate in legislation an attempt to regulate manufacturers that may be based in Japan, Germany or the United States.
      Mr. Corbett: I understand that, but I am glad that the Minister has taken my point, and that his Department or the National Disability Council, or both, will pursue it. I understand his reluctance to lay duties upon British manufacturers which it is not possible to lay upon foreign manufacturers, but there is nothing to stop him opening discussions with major British manufacturers.
      We are talking about providing information when it is requested, be it in braille, tape form, large print or text, as People First has done in its excellent presentation of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the better Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
      Birmingham city council is not alone among local authorities in translating its main documents—not just those about the council tax and extracting money from citizens—and issuing either a summary or a complete translation of them in the main languages used by the ethnic groups which make up a quarter of the population of the city of Birmingham. I might add that the council is extremely good at making such documents accessible to people with disabilities.
      I believe that it is a small step from people accepting the sense of respecting the different languages used throughout a community, particularly those in big cities, to making sure that such documents are available to everyone. It re-emphasises the argument that has run through our debates, because, unless the Bill starts the process of ensuring that every person with disabilities becomes, in time, a person with equal rights and equal status in our society, it will not succeed.
      I ask for a number of small things to be done, and I hope that the Minister will try to do something about them between now and when the Bill is considered in another place.
      Sir John Hannam: I support the new clause and amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I also welcome Government amendment No. 77, which provides for
      "access to and use of means of communication"
      and information services.
      850
      Access to information for blind and partially sighted and deaf people and those with learning difficulties is crucial. Misconceptions about the difficulty of providing access must not deter providers of services from giving basic information to disabled people.
      It is an all too common assumption that doing so can be expensive, but it does not mean providing everything in braille, as the hon. Member for Caernafon said. The offer to read something out on the telephone or to use better print standards is often enough. The cost of audio tapes is pretty minimal these days. For deaf people, visual information indicators, which we are used to seeing on railway stations, would be helpful in hospitals and other public service waiting areas.
      Advances in technology have opened new doors for handicapped people seeking information, so it is important that providers of information are aware of all the possibilities open to them in passing information to their customers. I believe that the Government have recognised that with their amendment, and it considerably strengthens the Bill.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for the support that has been given from the Opposition Front Bench and by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) to the new clause that I have tabled.
      I listened carefully to the Minister's comments. There is no doubt that he has moved from the original position he adopted, as we interpreted things, on Second Reading and in Committee, but I am unhappy that there remains an aspect that he has not tackled rigorously enough. I am not sure whether he is satisfied, if he is honest with himself, with regard to the issue of information in circumstances where goods are provided.
      I noted what the Minister said about overseas manufacturers not being required to provide such information. However, if overseas manufacturers sell goods for sale in the United Kingdom, they must abide by the consumer laws and the other laws that exist in the UK. In the structures of the European Community, there is already a move to obtain standardisation of the provision of information for disabled people.
      I was informed by an old friend of ours, a former researcher of the all-party disablement group, Diana Sutton, who is working out there now, that there is a move among Members of the European Parliament to achieve standardisation in that respect. I do not think, therefore, that the Minister's argument is entirely valid.
      Sense—the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association—drew to my attention an example of a young deaf-blind man who recently bought a £900 washing machine from a leading high street store. I ask the Minister to bear that example very much in mind, because it goes to the heart of the problem. That young man was informed that, first, if he wanted the manufacturer's instructions in braille, it would cost him additional money and, secondly, it would be about seven months before he would receive those instructions. That is obviously unacceptable. From what the Minister has said, nothing in the Bill will avoid that happening in future.
      The Minister cannot be happy about that. I suggest to him that there is room for the Government to reconsider that aspect. There may well need to be an amendment at

      851
      a later stage that enables a scheme to be introduced to cover circumstances so that disabled people may obtain information in a format that they can use.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: In looking again at this matter, would my hon. Friend agree that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about People First is also one that we should all take very carefully into account? Would it not be a good idea for there to be consultation between the Minister and his Department and People First?
      Mr. Wigley: Yes. I had intended to refer to the comments by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and I think that that is a helpful and constructive suggestion. I do not think that the Minister's mind is totally closed on that matter. I think that, if the Minister were able to find a way of doing that in practical terms, he would like to do it, because he would not like to think that a Bill that outlaws discrimination could lead to examples such as that of the deaf-blind person trying to buy a washing machine and being left in the circumstances in which he was left.
      Obviously there is a weakness. We have not yet discovered, according to what the Minister says, a practical means and a form of legislation to overcome the problem. I believe that a system of schemes for sectors—especially electrical and electronic gadgetry and so on—might be devised, provided that there is a handlebar in the legislation to allow orders or whatever to develop that in industries and in terms that the trade would accept. Obviously, the Minister would need to discuss the matter with manufacturers' associations and retailers before he could go all the way on that.
      I ask the Minister, as the Bill moves on to another place, as he has come as far as he has with regard to the provision of information services and information about services, whether the third leg of the stool—information about goods—might be reconsidered at that later stage to discover whether there is any way in which we can close that gap. I think that the Minister is sympathetic towards it. May I entice him to respond to say that he is prepared at least to consider that in the later stages?
      Mr. Hague: It would be wrong of me to raise the hopes of the hon. Gentleman that we could include provision about operating instructions in the Bill. There are fundamental problems of the type that I have described—fundamental problems that have defeated the drafters of legislation in other countries, including the drafters of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as I said.
      I certainly, however, believe that there is scope for the Government and the National Disability Council to work with manufacturers and retailers after the Bill is on the statute book, or even before, to ensure that it becomes increasingly common, and that it becomes accepted good practice, to tackle the aspect about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.
      I think that we are now providing for information in the vast majority of circumstances to be covered by the Bill. We have made that absolutely clear. I think that that is as far as we can realistically go in legislation at the moment.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It clarifies where the Government stand, and I
      852
      perceive that the Government would like, in the discussions that they hope to have at a later stage with those representative organisations, to close what they accept is a perceived gap and a weakness in the present provision.
      I therefore suggest, in bringing the short debate to a close, that the Government actively consider introducing in the Lords a facility to make an order, if a Minister deems it practical and appropriate in the fulness of time after those discussions have taken place, whereby one might underpin a system by legislative strength to avoid discrimination in that area. Without doing so, we shall have a loophole allowing discrimination to continue, so that good companies may have acceptable practices but many companies may not. People will encounter difficulties of the type that I have outlined.
      We have made progress on those issues. On the basis that the Government continue to consider the matter actively, and in my hope that they will persuade themselves to give a facility by way of order by amendment in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 11

      ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and such other regulations governing other forms of public transport to provide for prescribed standards of accessibility for disabled people in all new public transport systems.
      (2) Regulations may prescribe different standards for different classes of vehicle and may prescribe dates for different clsses of vehicle by which the standards must be met.
      (3) In preparing or revising the standards referred to in this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee established under section 125 of the Transport Act 1985.'.—[Sir John Hannam.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir John Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 13—Door-to-door transport—
      'The Secretary of State may issue regulations requiring Local Authorities to make provision for door-to-door transport services for disabled people unable or not reasonably able to use other forms of public transport.'.
      New clause 18—Design of means of public transport (No. 2)—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set standards of accessibility for disabled persons for means of public transport designed to be brought into use after the dates set in those regulations.

      (2) Means of public transport include, but are not limited to—

      (a) buses and coaches,

      (b) taxis,

      (c) trains, including light-rail,

      (d) trams, trolley-buses and underground trains, and

      (e) ships.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may set different degrees of accessibility for different means of public transport and different degrees of accessibility to be achieved by different dates.

      (4) In this section, "public transport" means any means of transport provided in return for payment, or, where no payment is required, on request.'.

      Amendment No. 2, in clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert—
      `(aa) any service so far as it consists of the use of any means of transport, subject to the provisions of section (Design of means of public transport);.'.
      Amendment No. 3, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27.
      Amendment No. 24, in schedule 6, page 36, line 40, at end insert—
      '8A. In section (Design of means of public transport) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland)".'.
      Sir John Hannam: I wish to speak in support of the inclusion of transport in the Bill, and specifically to new clauses 11 and 13, in my name and those of hon. Friends and colleagues.
      Having fought hard to persuade the Government to adopt anti-discrimination legislation last year, I was extremely disappointed about the exclusion of transport vehicles from its provisions, because I believe that it is no use talking about making it possible for disabled people to obtain employment or to have access to places of entertainment or education if they are not able physically to get there.
      As a member of the Government's Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, I was anxious to find a way of amending the Bill to ensure that transport is included and that regulations are updated to provide standards of accessibility for disabled people in all new public transport systems.
      The extent of a disabled person's mobility will affect his independence, employment and integrated life. Lack of access to transport means a continual restriction in someone's ability to go outside his front door independently. The more severe the disability, the greater the restrictions. Buses and coaches are, in general, inaccessible to wheelchair users, and those with walking or mobility difficulties often find it difficult to wait around for long periods for transport to become available.
      Recently, on television, a camera crew followed two young men in wheelchairs who came from the midlands and who decided to apply for job interviews in London. What, for any of us, would have been an hour and a half or a couple of hours on a train, with a transfer to a tube and a taxi, turned out for them to be a nightmare six-hour series of frustrations as they tried to find station staff with ramps, local trains or buses that were accessible to them and taxis that were suitable for wheelchairs.
      5 pm
      Certain inter-city trains now have only one designated space available, which means that two wheelchair users cannot travel together on the same train. Recent reports in the press show that Eurotunnel has accepted that it is wrong, and has agreed td provide extra space. That is a worthwhile move, and I am pleased to hear about it, but, generally, train travellers have to book 24 hours in advance of travelling in the hope that arrangements can be made for them. As we all know from our constituency cases, those arrangements often fall down on the day. All those problems increase the sense of isolation and separation from the rest of us felt by disabled people.
      A further problem is the lack of accessible toilets, which are available only on certain trains and stations. Disabled people have to become experts in bladder control. As the Bill is currently drafted, if discrimination
      854
      occurs on a transport vehicle, that will not be covered by the right to non-discrimination. But if the same offence occurs at a station, it will be. Surely the act of discrimination should be covered, not just the location.
      Everyone welcomes the Department of Transport's review of taxis, but taxis cannot be considered as a substitute for generally accessible public transport. It is time that we made public transport—certainly all new forms of public transport—accessible to all the public. A low-floor bus, with easily operated ramp access and no steps inside the vehicle, allows all passengers to get on and off much faster. By "all passengers", I mean not just disabled people, but elderly people and mothers with children. More than 3,000 low-floor, accessible buses are in service in Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Greece has plans for 1,600 such buses to be put into service.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the obvious rightness of introducing as rapidly as possible accessible vehicles and public transport systems, such adaptations have important advantages for the whole of society and the economy? Traffic moves more quickly because of improved accessibility, not only for disabled people but for others, and the environment benefits, because there is less pollution as a result.
      Sir John Hannam: That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend consistently points out the cost benefits of such actions, and he has just given us another example.
      We have some small pockets of provision in this country, but they are not widespread. The Government have announced that all new buses will be of low-floor construction, but that is no reason to exclude transport vehicles from the right of access to goods, facilities and services. The 1986 survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that 1.1 million people did not use buses because of their disabilities. Our new clauses do not seek to achieve the impossible but, if accepted, would put us on the right path. More importantly, they would give reassurance to disabled people who are worried about the gap in the legislation.
      New clause 13 is a probing measure related to local authority schemes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be able to give reassurance on that.
      I have tabled the new clause in the hope that the Government will see that transport should be included in the anti-discrimination legislation.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I am sure that we all welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has introduced an important subject. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is not rushing to accept the practical measures contained in the new clause. Perhaps the Minister has even more rabbits to pull out of the hat—his demeanour does not seem to suggest that today.
      The new clause is interesting and helpful, as one would expect from the hon. Member for Exeter, given his contribution to the all-party disablement group. The new clause invites the House to consider the subject of transport. Many people have said to me that, in some ways, the subject is the forgotten, yet essential and pivotal issue, in relation to disability.

      855
      I shall concentrate my remarks on new clause 18, but I do not intend that to reflect on the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Exeter or the advice from many sources that the Government have received, including the famous red book. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has a chance to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will use that book and add yet more glowing information to our consideration of the issues.
      Once again, we are considering a gateway of opportunity for disabled people to play their full part in society. Once again, the Government have intentionally and specifically obstructed that gateway by excluding transport vehicles from the Bill. For many disabled people, mobility issues are the most important aspects in their everyday lives. Their first request of Parliament is to provide the means to tackle those problems to achieve their mobility. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and I have heard no arguments against it. Even in Committee, the Government did not advance an argument against it, but merely said that if we waited long enough, the aim might be achieved. The Bill avoids those important matters.
      I commend to the House the publication by Scope last year of a document entitled, "Disabled in Britain: A World Apart". I would find it difficult to believe that anyone reading that document would say that the hon. Member for Exeter was asking for too much. He is not a parliamentary Oliver Twist; he is ahead of the Government, but not ahead of our times. Some might even say that the hon. Gentleman asks for too little. If the new clauses are passed, we shall have made some progress.
      The interesting document "Disabled in Britain: A World Apart" contains many insights into the ordinary lives of people struggling to overcome extraordinary difficulties. One comment is particularly revealing about what disability brings in its wake. The document states:
      "One day you might lose your passport to everyday society. You will have no visa to travel in certain places."
      Those are restrictions that millions of our fellow citizens experience day after day as part of their ordinary daily lives. They include restricting the right of disabled people to come to today's debate or participate in other, more interesting and compelling activities.
      There is no reason why, given the opportunity and parliamentary time, if not in this Bill—although I find it extraordinary that the Government are not grasping at the opportunity—in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), we should not reach conclusions on one of the most serious problems that disabled people tell us they face.
      I think that the descriptions in the document issued by Scope present an incredible image. We see that people in this country are trapped because of their disability and are unable to play a full part in the everyday life of our society. I have spoken to many disabled fellow citizens who have confirmed that image.
      Last night, I mentioned my recent experiences in Leicester and Birmingham, and I am pretty sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House could give similar examples from elsewhere. Disabled people are barred
      856
      from entering British life not by border controls but by the fact that the means of mobility do not exist. They are trapped behind their own front doors.
      One might think that the Government would jump at the chance to improve access for our fellow citizens who are trapped in that way, and would view it as a challenge to which they could respond in a practical manner. I hope that the Minister is thinking along those lines today. The hon. Member for Exeter, the House and I wait patiently to hear whether the Minister will respond positively, if at all, to those transport questions.
      That is one of the disabilities that the Bill should seek to tackle—not the physical disability of lack of mobility, but the social disability and immobility that comes from inadequate transport provision for disabled people which has been identified clearly in the speeches in this and in earlier debates and in all the responses to the Government's document, including those in the famous red book.
      It is up to the House—if hon. Members have the will—to provide a visa to enable disabled people to travel in British society and to give them a passport to areas of life from which they would otherwise be excluded by disability. Many people—not just hon. Members who are in the Chamber or those members of the public who are observing the proceedings from the Gallery—must be asking why the Government do not appear to have the will to do that. We must remove the exemption of transport vehicles from the terms of the Bill.
      It has been said many times in debate on the legislation—but it is worth saying again for the benefit of any hon. Members who may have missed the point—that one of the most ludicrous aspects of the Bill is that it obliges railway and bus operators to make reasonable adjustments in order to achieve equal access for disabled people to train and bus stations, but it avoids imposing any such duty in the cases of individual buses and trains.
      Under the legislation, disabled people gain the right to access the station, but not the right to catch a train. That situation is patently absurd and unacceptable. We pleaded with the Government time after time in Committee to respond to that problem and to offer us some hope of a practical approach which has been missing from our deliberations so far.
      For many people—disabled or otherwise—the car is the best answer to mobility needs. However, for disabled people, the cost of buying, adapting and running a private car often exceeds the support provided by mobility allowances—and, as we know, even they are under attack. Two in three households in Britain have access to a car. However, for disabled people, the equivalent figure is only two in five. Therefore, we must address the specific mobility problems that disabled people face.
      Taxis and private hire cars can be the next best thing to having access to a household vehicle. Encouraging progress has been made towards the target involving wheelchair access to taxis in London. I said in Committee, and it is fair that I should repeat it now, that, despite the views of the Cabinet and the right-wing approach adopted by the Secretary of State for Employment, the practical measures that we propose are confirmed by history.
      5.15 pm
      As a junior Transport Minister—before the dogmatists got hold of him—the Employment Secretary introduced

      857
      into London transport a measure whose aim was to adapt all taxis for people with disabilities by 2000. In 1995, he has achieved nearly 50 per cent. of that objective. The Secretary of State for Employment—a former junior Transport Minister—should be proud of that achievement. I am surprised that he is not in the Chamber listening to the debate and encouraging the Minister—whom many consider to be up and coming, as the Secretary of State for Employment once was—to do something practical and achievable in the transport field, not in order to advance his career but in order to be helpful.
      We want to extend that London objective to Edinburgh, Belfast and other cities. We want all taxis to be wheelchair accessible by the end of the century or before. That is a welcome, perfectly reasonable and helpful objective, which could be achieved. I welcome the assurances given in Committee by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People that steps will be taken to improve wheelchair access to taxis throughout the country. I am rather disappointed that he has not brought forward the promised new clauses in that regard at this stage. I look forward to seeing in the next few minutes whether there is a hat under the Front Bench with many rabbits in it.
      I take the opportunity to encourage Ministers to have regard to the different taxi transport requirements of people with varying mobility problems. Despite some excellent progress, the London hackney cab is not invariably the best vehicle for disabled people to use. I welcome Ministers' assurances that there will not be a blanket requirement for a single type of vehicle throughout the country. Ministerial indications that the necessary work will be done on vehicle design are helpful to disabled people and to taxi operators alike.
      I do not wish to diminish the significance of what the Government have said. The important thing is that action has been promised and that the principle of making taxis accessible to disabled people has been established. That sends out a very clear signal that, once the principle has been agreed, it cannot be reversed and should be applied elsewhere. But it brings us sharply to the question: if that principle can be made to work for taxis, surely it can be established for other vehicles as well.
      Let us not refuse our disabled fellow citizens a permit to travel. Let us instead extend permission to enter society through the gateway of public transport. Let us establish the principle of freedom of movement, and let us plan how disabled access to the means of travel can be achieved. As a means of so doing, I commend new clause 18 to the House.
      Mr. Hague: I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, but as the new clauses have been introduced I think that it would be unfair to allow hon. Members to speak in ignorance of the Government's response.
      At all stages in the preparation and progress of the Disability Discrimination Bill, we have made clear our commitment to achieving fully accessible transport. We have also made it clear that we believe that progress towards accessible public transport is best achieved by technical legislation or by regulations, codes of practice and so on—in other words, by targeted action rather than by blanket legislation. In the past few weeks I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by organisations such as the Royal Association for Disability
      858
      and Rehabilitation and the Royal National Institute for the Blind as well as those put to me on many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and the points that were raised in Committee. I have been considering, with my colleagues at the Department of Transport, how best we can meet the requirements for soundly based technical standards within the framework of the Bill.
      The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter take a similar approach. New clauses 18 and 11 propose a requirement through regulations for the introduction of access standards for new public transport vehicles and systems. New clause 18 would require regulations to be introduced setting minimum access standards. New clause 11 seeks a similar result by amending existing regulations. Both new clauses are flexible in that they allow different time scales and access solutions for different modes of transport. That flexibility recognises the Government's concerns that the operation of the various modes of transport will require different access solutions to ensure that the approach adopted provides, as far as practicable, effective and sustainable transport for all passengers, including those with disabilities.
      We would have no difficulty, as new clause 11 suggests, with charging the Secretary of State with a specific duty of consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the detail of regulations. As it is the statutory adviser to the Department of Transport, the Secretary of State would as a matter of course consult on an issue of such major importance for disabled people, as indeed he does regularly on a wide range of issues.
      On the specific examples of the transport modes that would be covered by new clause 18, for the most part we have no difficulty with them. On shipping, however, and equally on aviation, although the latter is not cited in the new clause but could be interpreted as being covered by it, we do not consider that it is right to introduce domestic regulations. In both cases, the international dimension of those transport operations would mean that domestic legislation would be of limited value, not least to disabled people, who would not have the assurance of access throughout the journey. In addition, United Kingdom operators would be commercially disadvantaged if they were subject to additional regulatory control in advance of similar measures in other countries.
      On aviation, international guidelines on the accessibility of aircraft to disabled people are already well advanced.
      On shipping, a new group has been set up under the International Maritime Organisation to draw up guidelines for the design of new vessels. We believe that those forums represent the best approach to tackling the access issue for aviation and shipping, and we would not therefore favour including those transport modes in the Bill.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many Scots living on our numerous islands have no access to public transport other than the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries. The Minister's refusal to deal with passenger ferry services will cause them great

      859
      dismay. I ask the Minister, where mainland-to-island and island-to-island passenger ferry services are concerned, please think again.
      Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises a point to which the disadvantage of international travel, to which I have referred, does not apply. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport. I would merely say for the moment that the IMO discussions that I have mentioned, if they are brought to fruition, would apply to our domestic ferries as well as to ferries for international travel.
      We have no general difficulty of principle with the other transport modes listed, although in some cases the practical constraints on improving access to existing systems are considerable.
      In relation to taxis, to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred, as we announced in Committee, we intend to table more detailed amendments. I had hoped to do so on Report, but the preparation has taken longer, so we shall do so in another place.
      On other modes of transport, as the House will have realised by now, the Government certainly support the spirit of the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and by the hon. Member for Monklands, West. There are, however, technical and legal difficulties with the clauses as drafted. We would, for example, have to be clear in our definition of public transport. The new clauses as drafted are not precise enough in that area. The issue is not tackled in either of the new clauses. Indeed, we would wish to go wider than new clause 11 envisages by specifically including rail as well as road-based vehicles.
      Neither do the new clauses recognise to any significant extent the existing legislative framework for each mode of transport. The House will be aware that transport operates against a complex web of legislation—domestic and, in some cases, European—and regulations. In considering amendments in that area, we would need to ensure that any new transport clauses in the Bill did not cut across existing provisions.
      Amendments have also been tabled to remove the general exclusion of transport vehicles and to add them to the specific list of services to which the general right of access would apply. Clause 12(5) already provides for the transport vehicle exemption to be modified. We believe that the most appropriate way to proceed is by separate regulations. Indeed, the new clauses aim to introduce regulations in that area.
      We cannot accept the amendments as drafted, for the same reasons that we cannot accept amendment No. 24, which is consequential and applies to Northern Ireland. Therefore, on balance, while we accept the spirit of the amendments, we are not able to accept them as currently drafted. Government policy is already directed at ensuring a fully accessible transport system in the future. In the light of the representations that have been made and the arguments that have been advanced, the Government are preparing to introduce provisions at a later stage in the discussion of the Bill, to amend existing legislation or, where necessary, to introduce new powers covering buses, trains, coaches, trams, taxis, and underground systems—even trolley buses, if such systems are reintroduced in
      860
      future. Before the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asks, as he surely will, we will of course ensure that the necessary amendments are tabled to bring appropriate provision to all parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister is right and what he said is important. He said that the Government will introduce measures. Can he make it clear whether they will be in this Bill and, if so, in what form?
      Mr. Hague: I cannot precisely specify the form, because the legal work on drafting such amendments is at an early stage. But I can say that provisions will be in the Bill, and to a large extent will probably modify existing legislation, to introduce new powers where necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport is able to set minimum access standards, with a timetable and with further provisions as necessary covering the areas that I have mentioned—buses, trains, coaches, trams, taxis, underground systems and so on—satisfying the hon. Gentleman on every point except shipping, over which we had the particular problem to which I referred earlier.
      Hon. Members will appreciate the crucial importance of ensuring that such legislation is drafted with the full knowledge and agreement of the transport industries. It is in no one's interest, least of all that of disabled people, to introduce measures that would jeopardise the viability of transport operators. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be particularly concerned to ensure that time scales for the introduction of accessibility requirements reflect the particular circumstances of individual modes of transport. For systems such as London Underground, for example, we are certainly talking long term. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that the embodiment of those powers in legislation will represent another major step in demonstrating that the Government's policies for tackling discrimination are comprehensive and will allow us to meet in their entirety the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and almost in their entirety the points made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
      New clause 13 deals with the provision of door-to-door transport services. Its effect would be for the Secretary of State to require local authorities to provide such schemes for disabled people. In fact, local authorities already have powers to provide excellent schemes such as these which do so much to improve independent mobility for disabled people. We believe that local authorities are best placed to assess their priorities in the light of their available resources and their knowledge of local need. The Department of Transport works closely with local authorities and offers advice and guidance on the effective operation of such schemes. I assure my hon. Friends that it will continue to do so, but it is not desirable for the Government to impose regulations on local authorities in this respect. We would, therefore, resist any move to impose requirements on local authorities.
      In this context, it is interesting to reflect on the fact that the increasing introduction of accessible mainstream public transport, to which I have made it clear that we are firmly committed, will over time change the role of door-to-door services. For many disabled people, they have up to now been a substitute for other forms of transport which were inaccessible. In future, they will

      861
      increasingly become a complement to public transport—for example, by providing local links to accessible main line services.
      I hope that all hon. Members will welcome my statement and that, as a consequence, they will not wish to press the new clauses.
      5.30 pm
      Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the Minister's statement, but I wish that we had heard it earlier. He could have made it in Committee, when we repeatedly debated transport but were told that he was not to be moved. Nevertheless, I congratulate him because he has clearly won the day with some of his colleagues. I am sure that he fought his corner to ensure that transport was dealt with.
      It always seemed crazy that bus and train stations had to be accessible but buses and trains did not. Such a state of affairs could be welcomed only by a disabled person who was a train spotting enthusiast as he or she would not be able to get on a train. I am glad that accessibility is to be more widely spread to include those who wish to travel. It is the only way forward. I am glad that the Government have at last decided that all the disabled people and their organisations who have been lobbying for months and all the Opposition Members who have been talking about making transport accessible have been proved right and that the Minister has seen the sense of their arguments.
      Disabled peopled have had so many problems with travelling. Only yesterday I issued a report on those problems, which include the fact that only one wheelchair is allowed per train. There will be difficulties with the InterCity 125 trains because the doors are not wide enough for an electronic buggy to get through. There are still some horrendous problems to deal with. We must ensure that they are dealt with quickly and that the Government outline some exact proposals.
      The Minister said that he agreed with the spirit of the new clauses, but we need some flesh on that statement. We need to know exactly what he is proposing. Further Government amendments will no doubt be tabled in the other place so we shall see whether the Government are going as far as we want and as far as disabled people want. There are more than 6 million disabled people in this country who will be pleased if the Government go as far as they have been asking or, indeed, demanding. They will not be pleased if, despite today's announcement, they suddenly find that the Government are not going to follow through.
      Sixty-two per cent. of disabled people have no access to a car, so it is even more important that they have access to trains and buses. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to move on that point. My report said that it would be halfway through the next century before buses and trains were accessible. If the Minister feels like intervening, I shall be grateful to hear what time scale he has in mind for making buses and trains accessible to disabled people: does he envisage it being halfway through the next century, or will it be sooner? I should like him to make a commitment. It is all very fine to talk about making transport accessible, but what is the time scale?
      Mr. Hague: I cannot expand further on the announcement that I have already made. Indeed, the new clause is designed to give the Government regulation-making powers to deal with such matters. We
      862
      shall take the hon. Lady's point on board. Neither those who tabled the new clauses nor anyone else could give a timetable for such things off the cuff. An enormous amount of discussion is needed, but the hon. Lady can be assured that the Government's intentions are absolutely sincere.
      Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister. I was not expecting him to say that all buses and trains would be accessible next week or even in the next five years; I was seeking merely to get a rough idea of his estimated time scale.
      Some vehicles are easy to adapt quickly and some will take longer, but comprehensive legislation is needed. If the Minister's proposals are comprehensive, the House and the organisations representing disabled people will welcome them.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement and congratulate him on it. He knows that when disabled people are asked what is their highest priority in practical terms as to how we should release them from discrimination, many unhesitatingly cite transport first and foremost because it is the key to their having access to a range of other opportunities in life. My hon. Friend the Minister has been aware of that, and I know how happy disabled people will be that he has been able to introduce this transport dimension fairly and squarely into the Bill. We look forward very much to the specific amendments that the Government will table in another place.
      The Minister talked about modifications to a complex area of law and envisaged future adjustment to regulation. However, I hope that when he frames this new element in the Bill he will range as widely and be as declaratory as possible. It is an important principle that the unac-ceptability and illegality of unjustifiable discrimination in transport should be clearly set out.
      The Minister talked about the Secretary of State having the power to do certain things. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to agree that the Secretary of State should have a duty in so far as may be reasonable, because that would put the matter in a more positive light, which is important in itself. The Government need not be especially nervous about the implications of reasonable-ness. For example, if it became standard that new public transport vehicles should be designed to be accessible, the output volume would be large and unit costs would accordingly come right down. If one sets the fairly minimal costs against the benefits to the economy and to society of increasing access—benefits which are hard to estimate or compute with precision, but which are undoubtedly very large—it is clear that we do not have to fear the cost implications, which a number of people have used as an argument for not proceeding very far, or very fast, in this respect.
      I again congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Minister.
      Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome the Minister's statement that, at some stage, the Bill will include provisions on the means of transport. I hope that, in the same spirit in which I welcome that inclusion and applaud that statement, the Minister will recognise that, for a considerable period, a number of hon. Members and many people outside have been arguing for precisely such provision. If I am generous enough in spirit to welcome

      863
      the Minister's statement, I hope that he will be generous enough in spirit to acknowledge that many people have been arguing for such provision for a significant period.
      It may be—we must obviously wait for the details of the Minister's proposals—that, in practical terms, the Minister's suggestion will not be a million miles away from provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which provoked the Government into making transport cost estimates which, frankly, were mind boggling. I shall be generous and acknowledge that the Government have made progress. I hope that they will include transport provision and that they will be generous enough to apologise and to say that a mistake was made a mere 12 months ago. We must wait for the details.
      I am acutely aware of the fact that, if more powers are contracted out to different Departments, provisions may be introduced in the Bill that will mean that someone else will take care of enforcement, which will lead to more difficulty in enforcing the measure. I want to return to enforcement on a future occasion. Notwithstanding the remarks about the inclusion of transport provision in the Bill, I am genuinely worried that the Government do not yet have the means to enforce a proper equal rights approach.
      In yesterday's debate on the disability rights commission, to which many hon. Members are totally committed, an hon. Member—he is not here, so I shall not mention his name—referred to the problem of regulation. We heard the argument, which one comes across frequently, that we should not have too much more regulation, and that the terrible thing about having a commission to ensure equal rights for disabled people was that too much regulation would result. I repeat the point that I made yesterday in a brief intervention. We can consider regulation in different ways. We can consider it as a purely ideological matter—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must consider that matter specifically in relation to transport.
      Mr. Berry: Indeed. In relation to transport, I made the point yesterday that, often, public transport access is denied to disabled people. That is the regulation that matters—the excessive and intolerable regulation. Disabled people's lives are regulated by inadequate access to transport. The point which I was trying to make—I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I was not making it well—is that the regulations that limit what disabled people can do are the regulations about which many of us are concerned.
      It may be the case, and indeed the Government admit this—it is part of the Bill—that the Government must regulate more so that disabled people's lives are regulated less. That point is no more important in relation to transport than it is in relation to other issues. We must ensure that the Government have a clear policy on Government regulation in public transport so that disabled people's lives may be deregulated.
      I support new clause 13. I hope that the hon. Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) did not table it merely as a probing
      864
      measure. The new clause contains an excellent idea. Only a fortnight ago, I picked up a leaflet in an underground station. It said:
      "If you or someone you know can't use Metrobus, Metrorail or other regular public transit because of a disability, MetroAccess is the answer … MetroAccess provides curb-to-curb services for persons with disabilities who cannot use regular public transportation."
      It is with regret that I have to inform the House that, as hon. Members have probably guessed, that document was found in the United States of America and not in the United Kingdom. Whatever the future of new clause 13 this afternoon, the hon. Members for Exeter and for Stratford-on-Avon were correct in saying that local authorities or a public transport authority—whatever organisation we choose—should be required to provide reasonable door-to-door transport services for disabled people. However much we improve the rail service, buses and taxis, those people may not be able to have access to a decent transport system. Like other hon. Members, I look forward to the Minister giving details of his new transport provision. I welcome the fact that the Government now recognise that transport needs to be dealt with in their Bill. I wish that they had recognised that 12 months ago.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Wigley: I greatly welcome the Government's conversion. We look forward to finding out the detail. In July or whenever, when the House of Lords considers the Bill on Report, an opportunity will exist for us to probe those details more than is possible today. We reserve our position.
      Unfortunately, the one matter on which I wanted to concentrate in this short debate was shipping and ferry services—the one aspect that does not fall within the Minister's remit. I wanted to bring his attention to the difficulties facing disabled people using such services. I have been approached by a travel consultant. The Travel Freedom organisation operates in Wales. It is run by Mr. Mike Weston Ashford. He collects advice for disabled people on holidays in the United Kingdom and overseas, and on transport and hotel needs. He wrote to me in the context of the legislation and his letter is worth quoting:
      "One glaring problem is the lack of facilities available within Britain and the need for legislation to enhance the right of disabled people … in respect of travel, accommodation and places of interest.
      Attached please find a photocopy of just one example. Here, in response to my communication enquiring of Eurolink, who intend to operate a new ferry service between Sheerness and Vlissingen in respect of facilities for disabled persons, is their response."
      I shall quote the response, which is especially pertinent to our debate. Eurolink stated:
      "We must advise you that, unfortunately, the two vessels which will shortly go into service for the Sheerness to Vlissingen route are not really suitable for disabled travellers.
      Whilst we do not wish to turn disabled travellers away, the facilities on board do not fully cater for disabled persons, ie there are no lifts on board nor are there any cabins specially adapted for wheelchair users.
      We are aware of the needs of the disabled and will be looking into this aspect of our service so that, at some time in the future, we will be able to offer all travellers the same access to all our facilities and service."
      There we have it. That is the sort of problem that is facing disabled people who want to travel by ferry. I remind the Minister that not only is there a ferry service between the

      865
      islands in Scotland but an internal United Kingdom ferry link exists between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
      A commonality of service is being developed in Europe. Whatever the general international perspective, standards in Europe should enable disabled people to use ferries and other modes of transport. The Minister has gone a long way in relation to the other modes of transport. I welcome that warmly and look forward to reading the detail. I accept that discussion continues on ferry services, but is it possible in another place to build in regulations to cover ferries? Those regulations could have different starting dates. They could come into effect as and when current international discussions have reached fruition. There could be two parts to those regulations, with some on internal ferries coming on stream immediately. Otherwise the position described in the letter that I quoted will continue and people providing a service, even a new service starting now, will feel at liberty to say, "Sorry, disabled people cannot use this facility." In the spirit of what the Minister has already said about transport, perhaps he would care to consider the possibility of doing something about that later in another place.
      Dr. Godman: I thank the Minister for his response to the transport needs of disabled people, and also for the way in which he replied to my intervention about passenger ferry services, especially the Scottish ones, which form an essential link between the islands and the mainland and between different islands.
      I ask the hon. Gentleman to think seriously again about the need to provide equality of access for disabled islanders and tourists, and for every other disabled person who travels in the islands, both between islands and between the islands and the mainland. I speak as a former shipwright, and when I next inspect the Isle of Lewis, a passenger ferry ship being built at Ferguson's in Port Glasgow, in my constituency, I shall look closely to ensure that she offers access for disabled people.
      That vessel, which will be launched by Princess Alexandra on 18 April, will form an essential link between Stornaway and Ullapool. Islanders have no means of travel apart from either the ferry service or the air service to Inverness and Glasgow; so for disabled people there is little or no choice anyway.
      The Minister said that he would bring my remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, and I should be grateful if he would also alert the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, as the Minister will readily acknowledge, has responsibility for piers, jetties and quays in Scotland.
      In his speech, the Minister said that his aim was to achieve a fully accessible public transport system for all. That is a laudable and honourable objective, and we all share it, but with Scotland's train and bus services there is a long way to go before we attain it. ScotRail has a disgraceful record on disabled people, and I hope that new clause 18, or even the Government's amendments, will persuade Dr. Paul Prescott and other directors of Railtrack in Scotland to get their skates on and improve services.
      Here is an example for the Minister. If an American tourist arrived at Glasgow airport seeking to catch a train from the nearest railway station—Paisley Gilmour
      866
      Street—he or she would have enormous difficulty in reaching the platform, and even then would have huge problems in boarding a train.
      The same is true of all the stations in Inverclyde. At Greenock central station, Port Glasgow station and elsewhere, boarding a train or disembarking from one requires a degree of agility beyond disabled people. That is a disgrace, and I hope that the Bill as amended by the Government will encourage ScotRail, Railtrack and the Strathclyde passenger transport executive to move things along. Hitherto their record has been disgraceful.
      That means that for many of my constituents who are disabled and live on low incomes a trip to Glasgow is out of the question, unless they have a friend or relative who can provide a car. At Greenock central station someone who wants to get on a train has to lift himself up about 18 in, which is too far for disabled people.
      We must always remember that, because they are denied access to an impervious labour market, many disabled people have to live on low social security incomes. They are therefore confined to public transport systems, and the system in the west of Scotland is an utter scandal at present. I hope that, in the interests of disabled people throughout Scotland, it will be improved within the next three or four years.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and seen the absurdity of their original position that there should be equal access to bus and train stations but not to buses or trains. I realise that the Minister cannot go into much detail now, but I want to press him a little further on what he has in mind for trains. I raise that subject not only because of the chaos of rail privatisation that the Government are trying to impose on us but because a constituent asked me to raise the matter.
      On Sunday I was asked to visit a woman in a wheelchair who has multiple sclerosis. She told me how she and a friend who also has MS had tried to travel from Edinburgh to Grantown-on-Spey, where there is a holiday establishment for disabled people. British Rail had told her that if they wished to go by train they would have to travel in the guard's van. Fortunately, she and her friend had a contact who could take them there in a motor vehicle with disabled access.
      My constituent was upset to be told that she would have to travel in the guard's van. However, like me, she already knew that that might happen, because she had several friends who had had the same problem. She told me how three other people had had to pay £100 each to make the journey in a handicab, and how another friend had travelled all the way from Edinburgh to Dorset in the cage of a guard's van. Rightly, she said that was a demeaning experience and that it could also be dangerous if, as was the case, the person concerned was in a manual wheelchair whose brakes were not absolutely foolproof. Furthermore, the doors of toilets on trains are not wide enough for wheelchairs.
      Can the Minister give us any guidance on what he intends to do about such matters? I know that the provision in the Bill will be general, but I should like to have something to say to my constituent about how the Minister imagines the problem being resolved. It does not seem to me that it would be inordinately expensive to do something about it. I believe that there is already usually one place on a train where a wheelchair can be clamped.

      867
      Surely other places could easily be converted for that purpose without great expense. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance to convey to my constituent.
      Mr. Hague: As I explained to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), I cannot expand on the announcement that I have already made. But I have given a commitment about taking a power through the Bill to make regulations covering trains and other modes of transport and, of course, the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) are among those that the Government and others, including rail operators, will want to take into account in the discussions about future regulations.
      Mr. Barnes: I have two things to say. The first is about the importance of what we are discussing, and the other is about the Minister's statement, which is also important. A while ago, I tabled an amendment to a social security measure dealing with providing mobility allowance for double amputees. At the time the allowance was not paid automatically, and once a person had lost both legs and had artificial limbs there was a test to see whether he or she was entitled to mobility allowance. I remember that the leader of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), was in the House and joined the discussion.
      I was concerned about my constituent, the late Melvin Wall, who was a double amputee and found difficulty getting out and moving around. He needed his mobility allowance so that he could get around. He liked to be picked up in a taxi on a fine day and taken to the nearby Rother valley, where he would be placed at the edge of an artificial lake. Throughout the day he liked to move around that artificial lake from bench to bench, resting as he went and, when the day was over, to be taken back. The quality of his life was vastly improved by that mobility allowance. Such a facility is equally important in the new clauses.
      6 pm
      The amendment was not adopted on the occasion to which I referred because it was withdrawn. The Minister's predecessor promised to introduce the mobility allowance later in regulations, and indeed he did so. Unfortunately, Melvin Wall benefited from it for a short time only, because he died soon afterwards. His case is a clear example of the need for people to be able to get around, move about, improve the nature of their lives by so doing and thereby be dealt with as full citizens in society.
      I am a little more sceptical about the Minister's statement than some hon. Members—perhaps that is my nature. We are rather in limbo. I am not quite sure whether the bottle is half full or half empty. Such a speech should have been presented as a statement in the House, after which we could have asked questions. Instead, hon. Members have asked questions and the Minister has jumped back in response. The Minister has not been able to say anything else, but he has offered some response to the points put forward. It is as if we have used the House's time on Report for statement purposes, which seems procedurally odd.
      868
      After Report is Third Reading, and on Third Reading we should be reasonably clear about the proposed legislation. Even though various changes may be made in the Lords and even if the Bill gets into trouble there, we should have the authority to say that the Bill should be passed as it was on Third Reading, a year after its First Reading. It is beholden on Ministers to try to get us to a stage where we know, as clearly as possible, where we are, apart from a little tidying up which may occur in the other place.
      The Bill has not progressed in such a way. Two major statements about changes to the Bill concerning education and transport have been made. I am pleased about those changes, but I think that they are as a result of important pressure, which has been exerted by people outside the House and by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in the cupboard. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is locked away in the cupboard and will not be released into Committee to progress properly. If we are dissatisfied with what occurs in another place, not only will we have the opportunity to discuss the Lords amendments and whether we think that they are good enough, but we will have an alternative. That alternative should be given the opportunity to see the light of day—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Third Reading speech and I urge him to stick precisely to the new clauses.
      Mr. Barnes: I would especially like to stress the transport provisions in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, some of which are included in the new clauses and amendments.
      Mr. Berry: Does my hon. Friend find it somewhat ironical that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was criticised for being too vague about transport and that was why the Government were unhappy, yet here we are this afternoon, as he says, welcoming even more vague proposals?
      Mr. Barnes: Yes, it is ironic and there are strong political reasons for it. It is entirely justifiable to say that the other Bill is helping, together with other action that people are taking, to nudge such provisions forward. The Government's Bill has been improved by some of the Minister's statements, such as the statement on transport. It is difficult to judge, however, by how much it has been improved, whether the statements and promises make it an acceptable Bill and how it measures up to the alternative Bill. The alternative must be present for as long as possible to push the Government's Bill further. In the end, when it comes to transport and other aspects, the provisions of the alternative should be fully operated.
      As has been mentioned, the intentions outlined by the Minister could work rather well if a disability rights commission were set up to pick them up, run with them and do a great deal of the work and we could make suggestions and recommendations.
      Sir John Hannam: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) spoke of the Minister pulling a rabbit out of a hidden hat. He has certainly done that, and a whopping Easter bunny it is, too. Yesterday we brought education into the Bill and today my hon. Friend has achieved our other main objective of bringing transport into the Bill. I pay tribute to all hon. Members from all parties who have consistently pressed the case for

      869
      transport to be brought into the Bill. In view of the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who, together with our hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, deserves our thanks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am assuming that the new clause which I moved is still before the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The technical position is that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to move new clause 18 formally, he may do so, at which point I shall have to put the Question. Does he wish to move new clause 18 formally?
      Mr. Clarke: I had hoped that the rules of the House would entitle me to ask the Minister a few more questions and then to decide whether to move the motion on this important new clause.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House some while and he must know that new clause 18 was grouped with new clause 11. Once the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) had begged to ask leave to withdraw the motion, I had put the Question and there were no objections, the motion was withdrawn. The only procedure that is now available to hon. Members is to move the new clause formally, in which case I have to put the Question. Formally means just that—not a speech.
      Mr. Clarke: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not my intention to move the new clause formally, but I hope that on Third Reading I can respond to the Minister's comments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that, on Third Reading, he is restricted to addressing what is in the Bill. Within that, he has plenty of scope.

    Clause 1

      MEANING OF "DISABILITY" AND "DISABLED PERSON"
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 10, after 'activities', insert
      `or has a history of having had such an impairment'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 10, after 'activities', insert or
      (b) a history of having had such an impairment.'.
      No. 17, in page 1, line 10, after 'activities', insert or
      (b) a condition which is likely to cause him to have such an impairment in the future.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 98 to 100 and 128 to 131.
      No. 21, in schedule 1, page 29, line 11, at end insert—'History of having had an impairment—
      4A.—(1) A person shall be treated as having a history of having had an impairment if there is evidence in medical records that he has, in the past, had an impairment which falls within the scope of any other of the provisions of this Schedule.
      (2) Regulations may prescribe other forms of evidence, apart from medical records, which may be taken to demonstrate that a person has a history of having had an impairment under sub-paragraph (1) above.'.
      870
      Government amendment No. 132.
      No. 13, in page 30, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert—
      '(2) Where a medical test reveals a genetic predisposition in a person to a progressive condition, sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall apply to that person as if he were suffering from that condition.'.
      Government amendment No. 133.
      No. 18, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, after 'effect', insert
      ',or
      (c) whether a person is to be treated as having a history of having had an impairment.'.
      Government amendment No. 127.
      Mr. Howarth: The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to remove an item in the Bill which seems to be misconceived and which would have deeply unhappy and damaging consequences for people who are destined to suffer particularly terrible disabilities.
      Schedule 1(7), which deals with progressive conditions in the Bill as it is drafted specifies that
      "Where a person—

      (a) suffers from a progressive condition … but

      (b) does not have an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, he shall be taken to have such an impairment".

      Schedule 1(7)(2) proceeds specifically to provide that where
      "it is likely that the person concerned will suffer from a progressive condition at some time in the future (for example, where a person has a genetic or other predisposition to a progressive condition)"
      he shall not have the protection of the legislation.
      I believe that the latter provision is unfortunate in its consequence. I cannot believe that the Government intended the consequences that would follow from it. Therefore, I have tabled amendment No. 13 so that
      "Where a medical test reveals a genetic predisposition in a person to a progressive condition"
      he will after all enjoy the protection of the Bill against discrimination.
      My particular interest in genetically transmitted diseases goes back for some years during a period in which I have been the national chair of the Huntington's Disease Association. Huntington's disease is one of the most terrible conditions from which anyone can suffer. The association is one of some 130 organisations which are members of the Genetic Interest Group. I have developed and tabled the amendment in consultation with the group.
      I believe that it is wrong to provide that those with a genetic predisposition to a late-onset disease, but who are not yet in the symptomatic phase, should be excluded from the protection that we give to disabled people from discrimination. Unless we so protect them, they will be liable to suffer discrimination in employment, when they seek insurance and in terms of credit ratings. A mass of practical difficulties could well be laid upon them. For heaven's sake, their lives are hard enough. They have to live with the knowledge of the near certainty that they will develop a disease. They surely deserve our particular consideration and support.
      Scientific advance in genetics is rapid. The human genome project is one of the largest research projects which is taking place today. The range of conditions that can be predicted and the accuracy with which they can be predicted is increasing by leaps and bounds. In the case

      871
      of Huntington's disease, prediction is now 99 per cent. accurate and can be made many years before the symptoms manifest themselves. It is now established that certain forms of breast cancer and bowel cancer and certain types of heart disease and diabetes are the consequence of genetic factors. As the House knows, some forms of Alzheimer's disease are also known to be caused by genetic factors.
      Unlike new clause 5, my amendment would not secure protection from discrimination for people who were in the pre-symptomatic phase of HIV unless perhaps it could be demonstrated that the condition was genetic in its origin. I am not scientist enough to be able to offer an opinion on that. I regard it as wrong to exclude from protection against discrimination people who are HIV positive but pre-symptomatic. Whereas new clause 5 dealt with that, amendment No. 13 does not. I believe that there were other difficulties with new clause 5.
      I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill as it is drafted encourages discrimination. It provides a positive incentive to those who may be minded to discriminate to do so early because, whereas it would be illegal for them to discriminate against someone once he evinced the symptoms, it would not be illegal for them to discriminate against someone who had not yet manifested the symptoms.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: How does my hon. Friend square his comments with the suggestion made to members of the Science and Technology Select Committee that literally everyone is predisposed to some late-onset disease or another and that that is not in fact a disability? How does he draw the distinction between discrimination against the disabled, which is the subject of the Bill, and discrimination in the more general sense, on which of course we are all with him?
      Mr. Howarth: I am in favour of protecting everyone from discrimination. The act of discrimination is what we find offensive. The particular point that I make to my hon. Friend beyond what I have already said is that we should make it illegal for people to be discriminated against because they are liable to develop a particular medical condition when they have not yet developed that condition. That seems simply offensive.
      Mr. Batiste: The Bill is about discrimination in the context of disability. It is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice, as I shall perhaps be able to demonstrate later, to treat predisposition as a disability.
      Mr. Howarth: I should like to deal with that point in a few moments.
      Sir Gerard Vaughan: The point that my hon. Friend may not have understood is that we are apparently all likely to have a genetic abnormality within us. The point is that we do not know what that genetic abnormality means. We may have a genetic abnormality of which we know the significance, but we may not know
      872
      whether that abnormality will develop. I do not see how we can speculate on the genetic information that we have at present and write it into anti-discrimination legislation.
      Mr. Howarth: My amendment specifies that we are dealing with cases in which a medical test reveals genetic predisposition. We are dealing with specific, objectively ascertained circumstances.
      Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Howarth: May I develop my argument a little further? My hon. Friends, who I know have thought carefully about the issue on the Science and Technology Select Committee, will perhaps be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Unfortunately, the Bill has built into it a provision in schedule 1(7) which in effect provides a positive incentive to those minded to discriminate to do so early—to get their retaliation in first, so to speak. That is perverse and contrary to the spirit that animates the Bill. It is surely an outcome that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot have intended.
      Let me illustrate what might happen in circumstances fairly close to home or at least to the office of my hon. Friend the Minister. The civil service employs many women. Some of the women whom the civil service employs will have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. It would surely not be right for the civil service as an employer to require them to provide details of their medical condition, even positively to seek out evidence of such a predisposition and then to exclude some women from employment. Common sense and common decency tells us that that would be wrong.
      The decision to take a predictive test is a major one, and it is a difficult and painful decision in the lives of individuals and their families. It may lead to much benefit. It may lead—if the test is negative—to relief from care and from the fear of having the condition. But if the test is positive and it is predicted that the person will develop the condition, he must live with the distress of knowing that, and he will then be faced with some desperately difficult decisions in his personal life. For example, he must decide whether to have children or whether to undergo medical treatment which may be traumatic.
      The effect of the Bill as worded would be to add to that person's dilemmas, because he could face discrimination in a range of areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said, the Bill is about people who are disabled, and he was perfectly right to say that people in the pre-symptomatic phase are not disabled. But I maintain that it is perverse that it should be legal to discriminate earlier where it would not be legal to discriminate later when the symptoms had manifested themselves. That cannot be sensible or right.
      Dr. Godman: I hastily observe that I am not an expert in this field. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which concerns the history of impairment, give protection to someone who has suffered a severe mental illness but has experienced what used to be called a spontaneous

      873
      remission, and is able to retake his place in everyday life? Would such a person, having experienced that recovery, be protected by the amendment?
      Mr. Howarth: Those are not circumstances which I had in mind during the formulation of the amendment, and I doubt if a person in such circumstances would be protected. That would need careful interpretation.
      The amendment will rescue from discrimination people who will develop certain diseases late on, and it will also rescue the Government from the embarrassment which they will surely be in if the perverse consequences which I have described occur. I propose that we proceed by determining that anti-discrimination provision applies to people in the pre-symptomatic phase as if they were disabled. I acknowledge, as has been said, that people who are in the pre-symptomatic phase are not disabled, but I propose that—for the purposes of providing practical protection for them—we should treat them as if they were disabled.
      The amendment proceeds differently from new clause 5, which defines people in the pre-symptomatic phase as disabled. That would be regrettable, because people who are not yet disabled do not—naturally enough—wish to be regarded or defined as such.
      The amendment would be equitable, and it certainly would be of enormous benefit to individuals who are at risk. I shall illustrate how it would be fair, proper and right to introduce the amendment. I am informed by the Genetic Interest Group of a case of a town planner with sickle cell disease who was employed by one London borough and then moved to a new job in another borough. He was a member of the local government pension fund, but the transfer of his pension with his new employment was initially vetoed by the fund when it was approached by his new employers, who were aware of his condition. In the end, it turned out all right, but confusion reigned for some months and he experienced enormous anxiety. If that issue had not been resolved, he would not have been able to go back to his old job, which had gone. The trustees of the pension fund would have been free under the law as it is—and under the law as my hon. Friend the Minister proposes—to refuse to allow that transfer.
      The amendment would be fair to employers and providers, and it would certainly entail them incurring no costs beyond those which they will incur as a result of the existing provisions proposed by the Government. The amendment merely requires them not to treat an individual unfairly when he is healthy. I do not see how my hon. Friend the Minister can reasonably object to that.
      The amendment ought to satisfy the Government, as I was careful not to extend the definition of disability beyond the commonsense terms which I know my hon. Friend is most anxious to retain. If the Government do not accept the amendment, they and the taxpayer will suffer. They will suffer because of an increase in the cost to the public purse as a result of individuals who have been excluded from employment and denied the opportunity to make private provision for themselves becoming more dependent on benefits and on publicly funded services.
      Just as the Government have made it clear that they are anxious to ensure that victimisation is not within the law, the same principle applies here. We are preventing people
      874
      from being victimised because of a future condition which they will develop, and from being victimised by having the discrimination shifted forward in time.
      The change to the Bill would provide a positive inducement to employers, financial services organisations and other groups to develop codes of good practice and to make their procedures transparent, logical and fair.
      My hon. Friend the Minister may argue, as was argued in Committee by the Government, that the amendment is unnecessary because employment protection legislation deals with the matter. I have no doubt that that legislation does provide protection for people who have been employed for more than a certain number of years. But if they have not been employed for that number of years, they are not protected. There is also no protection for those seeking work, or for those who are looking to move to a new job and, with the flexible labour markets in which my right hon. and hon. Friends glory, that is becoming a particularly important consideration.
      In the same way, existing insurance policies might well remain valid, but new ones will be increasingly difficult for people in this predicament to obtain.
      I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet that the Select Committee has heard the case put by distinguished geneticists that the right way to protect people in the pre-symptomatic phase and before the late onset of a genetically transmitted condition is through confidentiality. I do not think that that is sufficient protection. Secrets are not kept, and it would be most unreasonable if people who have such a diagnosis were required to live a furtive life in that regard. It would be unfair to them, and often it would be unfair to employers and others who might have a just entitlement to know. In any case, it is the act of discrimination itself that is offensive, and we ought to deal with that.
      I am not arguing that justified and reasonable discrimination should be made illegal. For example, insurers who have sound actuarial reasons for discriminating against a person so diagnosed would not be prevented by the amendment from doing so. I do not think that trying to screen out or bury the problem through relying upon confidentiality is the answer, although that argument has been put seriously in the face of other difficulties.
      Sir Gerard Vaughan: One of the issues that was put to us by the insurance companies was whether they have the right to demand the genetic screening of a person. If so, do they have the right to load the premiums? If so, do they have the right to let other members of the person's family know of the genetic problem? There are wide complications in this matter. We have heard that a person who discovers that he has a genetic abnormality may not know the implications of that. If he does know, it can cause immense psychological and social difficulties of the type that my hon. Friend described.
      Mr. Howarth: In his characteristically sensitive way, my hon. Friend raises an important issue, which I acknowledge.
      My amendment deals with a limited range of circumstances. It specifies a situation in which a medical test reveals a genetic predisposition in the person to a progressive condition. I am not trying to provide answers to the range of large, difficult, practical and ethical questions that arise from the advance of genetic science

      875
      and understanding. We could not do so in this context. It would be a colossal task for the House as a whole and no doubt it is one with which we shall increasingly have to grapple. That should not be used as an argument for waiting to deal with a clearly identified evil that would be an accidental consequence of the legislation as it stands.
      6.30 pm
      In truth, we will never end that discussion about all the ethical and practical issues that flow from genetics, but if we try to provide some all-embracing, grandiose solution, we shall almost certainly fail and in the meantime we will leave a clearly identified evil to become established. The best is so often liable to be the enemy of the good and it would be so in this case. Equally, we should not embark on a large discussion on privacy and confidentiality.
      We are talking about cases for which we already have evidence. We should not confuse this issue with the other issues with which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and other hon. Friends who have been actively involved with the Bill are concerned. This is a distinct issue and we can consider reputation apart from this amendment. We are talking about matters of established fact or ascertainable likelihood and not about reputation in the more general sense.
      I apologise for having detained the House so long on this issue, but it is one that matters very much. We have the remedy before us in the amendment and I hope that the House will be willing to accept it.
      Mr. Corbett: This is a difficult area with wide scientific implications. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) demonstrated, it is something with which the Bill ought properly to be concerned. Through the Bill, we want to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. I do not know whether this will help hon. Members who questioned the hon. Gentleman, but we are focusing on those people who have been diagnosed, as a result of a medical test, as having a specific and progressive condition. That is the best way that I can put it in layman's language.
      We are concerned with three broad areas—genetic predisposition, those diagnosed as having HIV or AIDS and known to be carrying the HIV virus, and a third group of people who are known to have sensory disabilities. As far as is possible, we want to leave none of those groups behind.
      Mr. Batiste: By categorising what are defined as specific groups, the hon. Gentleman identified people with a genetic predisposition, but in a relatively short space of time everyone will be diagnosed as having some genetic predisposition or another. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that, because everyone will die one day, one should not be discriminated against simply on that ground because one has a better idea of the route by which it will happen.
      Mr. Corbett: As I told the hon. Gentleman, I want to focus on those people with a diagnosed progressive condition. I take his point—we are all born to die, but we might as well pack up and go home on the basis of that argument.
      We are talking about people who, on the basis of medical tests, are identifiable. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, much misunderstanding,
      876
      prejudice and false information is being spread about people who have been diagnosed as having HIV or AIDS and those carrying the HIV virus. Companies such as Texaco, British Airways and Harrods make an HIV test a condition of employment. Happily, other firms in similar industries do not test the people they take on and have non-discrimination policies. They include Esso, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Sainsbury and Kingfisher.
      The Terrence Higgins Trust, of which I am pleased to be a patron, gives examples—with which I will not weary the House—of people in work who have been found to be HIV positive as a result of rumour or hearsay and have been dismissed from their jobs. That does happen and it is no good saying that there is a legal remedy if they have worked for a company for more than two years, as very few people will risk the attendant publicity of taking a case of that type to an industrial tribunal on the ground of wrongful dismissal under present legislation or would do so even if their cases were included in the provisions of this Bill.
      In an earlier debate, we heard examples of the 17 in every 100 people who suffer from some form of hearing loss. To deny them the cover of the Bill—if that is what the Bill does and there are some doubts about that—is to deny the deaf and hard of hearing their true identity as a distinct group with different needs. All hon. Members who have met people who are deaf or hard of hearing know exactly what that means.
      This may be an misunderstanding that the Minister can clear up, but my reading of the Bill gives me the impression that it encourages the employer who suspects that someone has a progressive condition to get in with discrimination early because the person is not covered until he or she exhibits the symptoms of that disability. I find that offensive. If we say that we will not take seriously discrimination against disabled people until the way in which they present themselves shrieks disability at us, we are heading in the wrong direction.
      We are talking about people who have been diagnosed after a medical test, who are in the pre-symptomatic state and whom we know will suffer the sad consequences of the conditions over a period of time, which will vary with the individual and the conditions. We want to ensure that, as far as possible, the Bill can offer them some help and protection.
      Mr. Batiste: I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who tabled the amendment, and a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to do. I believe that his approach is wrong, however, and will explain why.
      I should preface my comments by saying that I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is examining the ethical, regulatory and commercial implications of human genetic research. It is probably the most interesting study with which I have been involved, and it is one of the most impressive antidotes to the short-termism of parliamentary life, in that we are discussing something that will be of the most dramatic importance to everyone during the next century.
      We have taken a huge amount of evidence on a matter that will be so important and, because of its importance, will embrace uniquely complex moral and practical issues. I have no doubt that the House will be called upon to legislate on some of the issues—probably in the not so distant future.

      877
      It is wrong and dangerous to enshrine now, in primary legislation, ad hoc judgments outside the context of a comprehensive and considered framework, especially as the judgment that we are being invited to make today is flawed.
      The Bill is about disability and discrimination, and the amendment seeks to treat genetic predisposition as a disability.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: It does not treat it as a disability; it treats it as if a person with that condition were disabled, to ensure that the offence of discrimination does not occur. I ask my hon. Friend to focus on the moral aspect of the matter, and to address himself to the rights and wrongs of discrimination in a circumstance where someone may think that somebody else is disabled.
      Mr. Batiste: I have no difference with my hon. Friend in seeking to prevent discrimination in the sort of cases that he describes. I simply believe that what he has expressed, coloured as it is by the fact that his experience relates to information that he has received from his connection with the Huntington's Disease Association and genetics interest groups, does not reflect the broader picture. I ask him, in turn, to focus on the fact that to try to bracket genetic predisposition with disability is the worst possible signal to give at this point in the development of the science, for reasons that I shall describe in a moment.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman has failed to read the entire schedule. Clear reference is made in this amendment, the subsequent Government amendment and an amendment tabled by Opposition Members to terminology that overcomes his difficulty. The text before us refers to people who suffer from progressive conditions, and defines the kind of ballpark we are in.
      I do not think that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is really suggesting that Huntington's disease is not a condition which is almost certain to lead to discrimination. The amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) refers not to obscure matters like the colour of one's eyes but to serious progressive conditions.
      Mr. Batiste: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, he is missing the point. While the amendment has been proposed in the context of Huntington's disease and other serious defects, the reality is that genetic testing of predisposition will, in a relatively short time, cover the whole spectrum from Huntington's disease to predisposition to a variety of cancers, respiratory disease and a range of other diseases. The tests in each case will be differently balanced.
      For example, if someone with a genetic predisposition to Huntington's disease lives long enough, he or she will almost certainly contract Huntington's disease. But the predisposition itself and the discovery of the gene for that predisposition make it more likely that a cure will be found for that disease within the person's lifetime.
      Sir Gerard Vaughan: I do not wish to argue about details, but Huntington's chorea can occur quite early in life. The age of onset can be progressively younger and run through some parts of a family. So we cannot say that
      878
      a person will not develop that condition for a great number of years, as he may develop it quite soon. Moreover, we know that the person is properly diagnosed.
      Mr. Batiste: Indeed he may. I have drawn a picture of one end of the spectrum. The other end is that people will be diagnosed for all kinds of serious diseases with a percentage possibility that they may or may not contract them at some time in their lifetime, but we have no way of predicting when they are likely to do so.
      To say that the amendment is confined to a small group of people is wrong, because, within a short time, it will apply to an ever-growing number of people and, ultimately, to everybody. If hon. Members would listen to me for a moment more, they would understand that I am not trying to advocate discrimination, but saying that we should deal with this matter through different routes that would not have the serious side effects which clinical geneticists already advise us this will have if we try to treat the predisposition as a disability.
      6.45 pm
      It is wrong to believe that there is one healthy genetic norm. That is a deterministic judgment which has nothing to do with this science. In reality, every person is unique and predisposed to some serious disease or another. Predisposition to one disease may provide protection against another serious disease.
      The whole process of genetic prediction of predisposition is a step towards understanding the nature of a disease and a cure for it, and hence the defeat of the original prediction. It is wrong to label any human genome as containing and constituting a disability when there is no current physical or mental symptom.
      That is not to countenance discrimination, but to say that the solutions to genetic discrimination are far more complex than envisaged in the amendment, and are outside the Bill's scope. The worst case of genetic discrimination that has occurred so far is that of sickle-cell anaemia carriers in the US, where massive discrimination took place because of a well-intentioned attempt to define sickle-cell anaemia as a disability, which caused havoc to large numbers of people who were never likely to contract the disease in the first place.
      We had an opportunity in the Select Committee as recently as last week to take evidence from one of the most eminent clinical geneticists in this country, Professor Modell. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) asked him:
      "If you discovered, as it were, that you had been screened and you had got this predisposition, should it be illegal to discriminate against you on the grounds that you had this predisposition … ?"
      The response from Professor Modell was clear and unambiguous. He said:
      "It seems to me the suggestion that people should have this protection on the grounds of a predisposition could be quite debilitating and damaging to the individual. In my own area, forgive me for … returning to thalassaemia, but we have adult patients and one of the most active arguments between them at international meetings is over exactly this issue, because there are some countries in which, by virtue of their diagnosis, they are entitled to a certain amount of pension, free cars, going to university, and they feel that this actually undermines their self-esteem as adult individuals. And I can see this, it actually causes a great deal of social harm, to give people protection on the basis of a diagnosis. They would not mind the protection if they were handicapped"—
      but not on the basis of diagnosis.

      879
      I went on to suggest:
      "I think what you are suggesting is that the protection should actually come through proper codes of secrecy and privacy, in relation to genetic screening information, rather than by defining fairly artificially the predisposition as being a disability".
      Professor Modell replied:
      "Absolutely, yes."
      The House will have to make many difficult decisions as genetic science increases in its knowledge and its impact on a range of issues. Those include life assurance; mass screening; informed consent; privacy of information; financing of health care; and employment. The solutions to those problems are not always the most obvious.
      The best bioethics framework document that I have seen so far is a draft convention by the Council of Europe. It deals with predictive testing and its implications, and refers to predictive testing for serious late-onset diseases, which is at the heart of this amendment, but does so in a wider and more appropriate context than the Bill. The right course for us is to ratify that convention and establish a national bioethics commission to operate within it and make considered recommendations for legislation in this country. It is not to make piecemeal judgments and enshrine them in primary legislation, however well meaning.
      Ms Lynne: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate.
      Definition is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It means that people will either be assisted by the legislation or excluded from it, depending on the definition of "disability". I tabled an amendment in Committee about definition for that very reason. I felt that it was one of the most important parts of the Bill, and I am pleased to discuss it today.
      Many illnesses and disabilities are not covered by the current definition of disability in clause 1, but they should be. Transient illnesses, such as mental illness or epilepsy, are not properly covered by the definition, nor are intermittent illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME. People will not be covered by the definition before the onset of the symptoms of a degenerative illness such as multiple sclerosis. The same applies to people with dormant conditions such as HIV.
      People will be discriminated against because of their past or future illnesses, because the definition in clause 1 may exclude depression or someone with a history of mental illness. We raised that in Committee, but we received no satisfactory answers from Ministers. We must be given a satisfactory reply today, because that definition is not wide enough.
      Genetic disorders have already been mentioned by several hon. Members, who have spoken about the advances that have been made. That we get the Bill right is therefore a serious matter. A genetic test can now be conducted to see if someone is predisposed to Alzheimer's disease. Some 634,000 people in this country have dementia, and of those, 70 per cent. will get Alzheimer's disease. If that test is positive, the person tested could be discriminated against by employers, who might refuse to take him on because he may get Alzheimer's disease in another few years.
      880
      People will be subject to actual discrimination because of a test they took to find out whether they are predisposed to a particular disease. Such people could be debarred from insurance and employment, so they need to be included in the definition in clause 1. People suffering from asymptomatic HIV are another example, because those who have been diagnosed with the HIV virus are already discriminated against, even though no one has provided us with the time scale for the onset of the symptoms of that disease.
      Sense—the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association—has done extremely good work in advising hon. Members about the problems of the definition in clause 1 and other problems connected with the Bill. It is extremely worried that people with Usher syndrome will be excluded from the definition.
      Someone with that syndrome may have a slight hearing loss or may be born with a hearing impairment. He may get employment, but if an employer knows that that person could also lose his sight in his late 20s, he could be debarred from even getting that employment. I cannot think of anything more devastating than dual sensory loss. Those suffering from Usher syndrome must be included in the definition.
      Future conditions are not included in the definition, yet it should be inclusive, not exclusive. That is what discrimination is all about. We need a clear, comprehensive and, above all, workable definition.
      The current definition in clause 1 is far too narrow, and it will create confusion and uncertainty. It will lead to lengthy disputes, especially when we consider how the Bill deals with clinically well-recognised illnesses. Someone who has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 might not be covered by the definition. It seems absolutely incredible that a person could be judged not to have a mental impairment, but could be locked up against his will, and still not come within the remit of this Bill.
      That definition must be amended to include not just present disabilities, but a history of illness and a reputation for having an illness or disability. Without that change, the definition is too tight. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will vote for amendment No. 12.
      Sir John Hannam: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has spoken about amendment No. 13 on genetic predisposition. Organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I am a vice-president, have expressed concern that the Bill as it stands fails to afford protection from unfair discrimination to those people who can be identified by predictive genetic testing as being at risk of becoming disabled due to genetic causes. They fear that information gathered from genetic testing could be used to restrict an individual's access to the life opportunities mentioned by other hon. Members.
      I share some of the apprehension that certain hon. Friends have expressed about the correct time to legislate, given that so much research is being conducted into genetics. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer that point.
      Amendment No. 12 relates to the history of an impairment. I hope that we can make some progress on that, because I know from constituency experiences of individuals, particularly people working in the civil service, who have suffered discrimination as a result of previously having suffered depression, a nervous

      881
      breakdown or other illnesses. It was a long time before some of those people became aware that that medical evidence had affected their careers.
      The amendment would extend the definition of a disabled person given in clause 1. I support it because the existing definition is unnecessarily restrictive, as it excludes many people who suffer from the most severe and unjustified discrimination.
      The current definition concentrates entirely on an individual's ability
      "to carry out normal day-to-day activities."
      The Government argue that that definition represents common sense. At first glance, it may seem fair that people who are not really disabled should not be covered by the Bill, but on closer examination, problems become clear. As I have explained, people who have been treated for depression often find that employers are prejudiced against them. As the Bill stands, they will be entitled to protection only if they can show that their depression is likely to recur in the future. That is not common sense, nor is it equitable.
      I have cited one group of people who should be included within the definition, but many others will be ignored despite the fact that they are already discriminated against on the basis of disability. They may exclude people with epilepsy, diabetes or ME. People with visual, hearing or other impairments may also be excluded because their disabilities are not severe enough.
      To claim the right to fair and equal treatment, a person will first have to convince an employer or a court how incapable he is. That contradicts the real message of the Bill, which should be to promote an understanding of the abilities of disabled people. It is also at odds with the dignity and respect that disabled people have the right to expect from a law aimed at ending discrimination against them.
      Concern has been expressed about extending the definition too widely, so that it could cover the whole population. A similar problem has not arisen with other equality laws that have been drafted precisely to include everyone. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 makes discrimination against men or women on the basis of gender illegal; similarly, the Race Relations Act 1976 protects anyone, black or white, from racial prejudice. It makes sense for protection against discrimination on the basis of disability to be equally broadly drawn.
      The right to fair treatment should not be rationed. I therefore hope that the Minister will heed those arguments when considering amendment No. 12.
      Dr. Jeremy Bray: Like the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, but I believe that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) is an appropriate interim measure to anticipate the much wider legislation which will be needed in the near future. I agree with the hon. Member for Elmet about that. The Select Committee is in the process of exploring such legislation.
      As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the present draft of the schedule has a positive bias against those with a genetic predisposition. That is plainly wrong. If it were neutral, that would be a different matter. If the Bill creates a positive incentive for an employer or anyone else to discriminate against a person who has a genetic
      882
      predisposition—it will be possible to discriminate against him only before it becomes a progressive condition—that is wrong.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if employers or insurance companies are allowed to discriminate against people with genetic predispositions, the effect may be to give people a disincentive not to have genetic tests and that, in many cases, such as that of a familial tendency to breast cancer or raised cholesterol, that may be deleterious to that person's health? Therefore, it is extremely important to pass the amendment in terms of discrimination.
      7 pm
      Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend raises several important issues that need to be regarded in a wider context.
      There is a range of considerations. First, the circumstances differ widely for different genetic predispositions. Sometimes there is a high probability that an illness or malcondition will occur; at other times, there is a low probability. In some cases, it is long postponed; in other cases, it occurs at a very early age. In some cases, there is rapid progress in research and there is the prospect that some treatment may be found during the lifetime of the person affected. In other cases, it is a hugely difficult issue whereby, according to the present state of knowledge, there is not much optimism of a therapy being found in the foreseeable future.
      Against that background, we are dealing with public attitudes and parliamentary attitudes that are inappropriate to consideration of those issues. A public who expect one to insure against risks of a million to one—against the extreme improbability of people incurring cancer as a result of a tiny radiation leak, requiring huge investment at a nuclear power station or something like that to avoid that risk—are plainly not a public who are able to cope with 1 per cent., 10 per cent. or 30 per cent. probabilities of their having a child with a certain predisposition, which they will need to come to terms with in their personal lives.
      In Parliament, it has been money for old jam to take up some cause about which the public can be panicked and to build that up into a great campaign, producing wild biases in the allocation of resources, in the direction of research and so on, which do not lead to a sensible set of personal attitudes. The most important aspect of legislation is the type of demonstration it gives people as to how they should react in certain circumstances.
      Sir Giles Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is exactly the problem that so much may be expected of genetic screening and so many unwise decisions might be taken in the light of genetic screening that makes it essential to avoid a mass hysteria resulting from people supposing that we shall all be able to have genetic screening, and that we shall all be found to have Alzheimer's disease? Hence the disservice that would be done, in my humble estimation, if the amendment were made, because it would arouse expectations that should not be aroused, and would make such persons even more vulnerable than they may feel now.
      Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, well understands the complexities. My judgment would be that, on the whole, given the present set of public and

      883
      parliamentary attitudes, given the splendid progress that the Committee is making under his enlightened chairmanship, and given the likelihood that the Government will accept the recommendations that we make in that report, it is a sensible measure, in response to the alert identification of the bias in the Bill by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), to tackle the practical position that it creates by the amendment that he has tabled.
      I repeat that it can be only a temporary disposition, and the House must return to those matters.
      Mr. Wigley: I approach the issue from the viewpoint of disability, although I should have very much liked to have been on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is inquiring into those matters.
      I suppose that I should declare an interest immediately, because I lost two boys because of a genetic condition, and therefore I am a carrier. That may put me in a different position from other Members of the House. On the other hand, it may not, because all of us have on average half a dozen genetic abnormalities, and it is very often a matter of luck whether those abnormalities lead to one's offspring having genetic problems.
      That being so, the problem is not an individual one but a general one, because, as hon. Members have said, we shall confront massive problems over those issues in the next few years, and very shortly. I have discussed some of the implications with Professor Peter Harper and others.
      There are two distinct aspects. One is the aspect that impinges immediately on discrimination in the context of the Bill, such as in the place of work. It is unacceptable that we should say that it is legitimate for there to be discrimination against a person because that person has a potential of having a disability at some time—that is, to discriminate against a perfectly healthy person at the moment because something may or may not happen in future.
      To make it worse, because many of the rarer conditions are not well understood, a potential employer may read in all types of difficulties in a few years' time that may not be there, because the rate of progress of many conditions varies enormously.
      One thinks of people with some of those conditions who have made enormous successes in their lives. One thinks of Sir Charles Evans, who was principal of the University College of North Wales, Bangor, who very nearly reached the summit of Everest in 1953, yet who, for his latter years, was in a wheelchair with MS. If he had been discriminated against because of the condition that he potentially had, it would have been outrageous, and no one was to know the speed at which that condition developed.
      Therefore, in the context of employment, it is untenable to hold the opinion that has been held by some Conservative Members in resisting the amendment. I think that that goes along with a whole load of other aspects of the Bill regarding services and other facilities needed by disabled people, but especially employment.
      Hon. Members have mentioned another matter—insurance. There, I suspect, we have it, because I am very much aware of a strong lobby in the insurance world that is of the viewpoint that it has the right to use all and any
      884
      information available in calculating insurance premiums and liabilities, and that to restrict that lobby from having that information is to cut across the whole profession.
      The argument that I would make about that—I would base it on a different premise from the argument that I made regarding employment—is that insurance should be regarded as a spreading out of risk, and if we are approaching a position where the genetic mapping of every individual is potentially known, all those calculations can be made and the whole industry will be turned upside-down. I would prefer that we resist that at the moment, that we take it that there must be an average loading of premium, and that the more difficult, expensive cases must be carried by the rest of us who are lucky enough not to have those problems.
      Mr. Batiste: I do not necessarily disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says about insurance, but my understanding of the amendment is that it will not have that effect. If the insurance companies can show that there is an actuarial base for the premiums that they wish to charge, it will simply enable them to identify higher-risk groups and load the premiums even more on to those groups.
      The way in which one should approach the matter is to consider whether the documentation should be supplied in the first place, in view of the overwhelming need to get as many people screened as possible in the categories required.
      Mr. Wigley: Yes, but the clause and the Bill have nothing to do with the provision of the documentation. We are talking about discrimination—discrimination against people on the basis of their potential disability. I believe that that is an unacceptable way of going about things.
      There may need to be some amendment in another place to fine-tune the implications in insurance, although I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that the approach that must be taken is a broad-based approach by the society in general—by which I mean the society of people who are insuring, accepting the overall swings and roundabouts of risk. However, if there is another approach whereby some safeguards for insurance work need to be built in in another place, so be it.
      However, it would be wrong to allow discrimination to be acceptable in the context of employment and all the other contexts that we have examined in the Bill because of those problems. The Government should accept the amendment. If there needs to be some fine tuning after that, so be it. I accept that there will be much more legislation on other aspects of the subject that have far-reaching implications.
      Mr. Miller: I shall not repeat the issues with which the Select Committee on Science and Technology is dealing—my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) covered the subject extremely well.
      The key issue is whether we should take a neutral view on issues relating to genetic predisposition, a negative view—as clause 1 does—or follow the lead of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and take a positive view. To my mind, there is only one choice.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to people minded to discriminate, which is what we must focus on. As the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said, it is clear that each of us has a genetic predisposition

      885
      to something: the problem is that we do not know what it is. The only certainty in life is death. We all have a genetic predisposition to some condition or another, and our knowledge will grow, but that is not what the clause is about.
      The clause is clearly about the circumstances in which people discover that they have a genetic predisposition that may result in a shortening of their life or a serious late-onset disease that causes them to be discriminated against. Clearly, such people should not be the subject of discrimination, and I think that the Government would agree with that.
      The question is one of definition. A number of clauses refer to issues such as progressive conditions and histories of impairment. They could all be used to incorporate the spirit of what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is saying, but they do not get to the nub of the matter in the way that he does.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made an extremely important point about insurance-related issues. If all Conservative Members joined BUPA and one of them wanted to jump the queue, the only way he could do so would be by creating a super BUPA. The Government might regard that as a sensible market, but if we extend the logic of the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon by 10, 15 or 20 years and if the insurance industry operates in the way postulated by the hon. Member for Elmet, there will be no insurance industry. People will have to be grouped and risks will have to be spread, otherwise there will be no insurance industry.
      The key reason why we need to ensure that nobody is discriminated against is simply that if there is potential for discrimination much of the research being undertaken within family groups will be restricted. If one member of a family group in which a particular condition is prevalent makes himself available for a test that shows that he has a predisposition that may or may not express itself in years to come, that could, in itself, result in discrimination. If we do not encourage people to participate in family group studies, our knowledge of disease and tragic conditions will be restricted. A positive way to encourage development would be to incorporate the philosophy of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon within the framework of the Bill.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Hague: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate in the middle of our proceedings this evening.
      I am concerned that some hon. Members view the Bill as the solution for all discrimination. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill; it is not even a general health discrimination Bill. Our intention in proposing the Bill is simply to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
      As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, the Bill aims to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. In meeting that aim, we must carry with us employers, business and the general public. Vagueness and uncertainty will not do. Employers, businesses and individuals need to know who has rights, who can complain to the courts and tribunals and to whom those employers or businesses have duties.
      The Government have had a clear policy—that the people we intend to cover are those with a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term
      886
      adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Those are people who are disabled in commonsense terms. There is no question about whether people with sensory impairments are included. The hon. Member for Erdington raised that subject in his speech and we have been over it in Committee. The phrasing of the Bill, and our proceedings in Committee and in the House, show, without doubt, that people with sensory impairments are included in the word "physical" when we use the definition "physical or mental impairment".
      We have also ensured that people with progressive conditions are covered from the first point at which they have an effect on day-to-day activities, however slight. We have also ensured that people are covered who have impairments where the effects fluctuate or recur. We have ensured that people with severe disfigurements are covered. All those are people who are commonly accepted as having a disability.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister spoke of those he must try to carry with him on the issue. He did not talk about the organisations of or for disabled people. They are concerned to see changes in the definition that he proposes. I asked him at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings if he would meet the Genetic Interest Group. I suggested that it would be rewarding for him as well as highly satisfactory for the group. Is he prepared to meet that group?
      Mr. Hague: I met the Genetic Interest Group last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) brought its director to see me and we had a valuable discussion. I shall come to the points that hon. Members have made about genetic predisposition in a moment.
      Although we are extending protection to a wide range of people, a line has to be drawn about whom the Bill is for. That is not an easy task, as today's debate has clearly shown. The American experience shows that tremendous problems can be caused by involving groups with marginal connections to disability. Such problems include large backlogs of complaints, great employer uncertainty and groups rightly intended to be excluded from the legislation managing to complain by claiming that they have a reputation of having a disability.
      We recognise, however, that there is serious concern, which has been voiced this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), about discrimination against people who have had a disability, but who have recovered. MIND—the National Association for Mental Health—has put the case for people who have recovered from mental illness. Other groups and individuals have made their strong views clear, including my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. After careful consideration, the Government have accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination on people who have had a disability that meets the Bill's definition.
      We cannot, however, accept the amendments because we must consider the implications of the change, not just for the definition but for the Bill as a whole. We will table appropriate amendments in another place and I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will feel able to withdraw the relevant amendment concerning history of disability.

      887
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 would bring people with latent conditions and genetic predispositions within the scope of the Bill. I have given the matter a great deal of thought and I had a very useful meeting with the director of the Genetic Interest Group last week. I accept that some serious ethical issues arise from the advances in genetic screening techniques and that there is potential for discrimination—which I strongly oppose—against people with certain genetic predispositions. However, to include people with latent conditions or genetic predispositions in the Bill would open up the legislation to vast numbers of people who are not, and may never be, disabled.
      I am advised that the human cell has an estimated 100,000 genes. As we are able to identify, isolate and test for more of those genes—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)—it has been estimated that we will all be found to carry a complement of potentially lethal mutations, which is a sobering thought even for this place. In about 10 years' time, the Bill, which is designed to provide protection for disabled people, could cover the entire population of the country.
      I understand that the effects of those potentially harmful genes do not always manifest themselves and that many individuals who carry a particular trait will never show any effects of it. I am also advised that the predictive power of genetic testing is, with few exceptions, likely to remain uncertain. No screening test will be 100 per cent. reliable. For example, the well-publicised cystic fibrosis test cannot detect all the mutations; at best, it can be only 80 per cent. reliable and both false positive and false negative results can be expected.
      In other words, except in a few well-publicised cases, genetic tests are not as yet a useful indicator of future actual disability. Their inclusion would open up the Bill to large numbers of people who are clearly not, and may never become, disabled.
      Dr. Bray: If what the Minister says is correct—and his remarks have great force—would it not be reasonable for the Government to say that, in certain named conditions where the likelihood is more than about 10 per cent., it would be wrong to discriminate? That suggestion is clearly not made in the amendment, but the Minister could say that he will examine the possibility of such a proposal before the Bill goes to another place.
      Mr. Hague: With that suggestion, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) takes us into a whole new area of creating an arbitrary distinction about which there would be further room for debate. I understand the points that he and other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, have expressed in that area. However, we cannot wander into a situation whereby, for some reason or another, potentially the entire population could claim protection under the Bill.
      I do not believe that the Bill is the right place to address those concerns—which go much wider than issues relating to discrimination, as I think my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) said in interventions. The House will now be aware of the inquiry by the Select Committee on Science and Technology into human genetics. I
      888
      understand that the Committee is currently addressing a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members and that it will report later this year. The Government will want to look very carefully at the Select Committee's findings and recommendations before deciding whether specific action is called for. That will provide a valuable opportunity to consider the issue in the round, including the points that have been raised in the debate.
      I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the Government do not intend to ignore those issues. The Government's door will be open for further discussions not only about the specific issue that he has raised tonight, but about the wider issues that have been raised as a result of what we know about those matters to date. I think that is the sensible way for the Government and the House to proceed.
      To accept all the amendments that have been proposed would change the Bill from a disability Bill into a general health Bill, which would dilute its effect in protecting people who are commonly understood to be disabled. I hope that the whole House will welcome the statement that I have made about including people with a history of a disability in the Bill.
      I turn briefly to the Government amendments that are grouped with the amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. As hon. Members know, the Bill is designed to eliminate discrimination against people with a disability that has a substantial long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activity. We have always intended that the Bill should cover people who are terminally ill and who may not have 12 months to live. However, it became clear in Committee that that might not be the effect. Therefore, in order to avoid any doubt or confusion, I have tabled amendments Nos. 98 and 99, which clearly cover people who have fewer than 12 months to live.
      Many of the other amendments are drafting changes, but I particularly draw attention to amendment No. 129, which introduces the term "concentrate" into the list of normal day-to-day activities. It is a very important amendment which ensures that people with certain conditions, such as schizophrenic disorders, will be covered by the Bill.
      In addition, we are aware that there is potential for confusion because the Mental Health Act 1983 also uses the term "mental impairment". The Mental Health Act definition is too narrow: it does not cover learning disabilities unless they constitute an impairment associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct; it does not cover mental impairments arising from injuries later in life; and it has no long-term element. As the purposes of the two Acts are quite different, we believe that it will be helpful to make the difference in the definitions apparent. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 127.
      The final Government amendment to which I shall refer is amendment No. 132, which makes it clear what is meant by "progressive condition". As I said in Committee, the Bill is about people who have the symptoms and signs of a disability—and it will now be about those who have had them in the past. However, as symptoms are rather subjective, we have decided to adopt the same approach that we used to define a disability and refer to effects on normal day-to-day activities.

      889
      This is a very difficult area. We have to draw the line somewhere in the definition and I think that we have drawn it in a sensible place, although the Government are prepared to move the line for people with a history of an actual impairment which meets the terms in which impairment is defined in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has expressed legitimate fears. I hope that he will be encouraged by my assurance that the Government's door is open to discuss these matters in the round. We certainly look forward to the report of the Select Committee later this year, which will draw attention to many more of those issues.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: With the leave of the House, I shall make some quick observations.
      I am grateful to hon. Members who, in some considerable number, have taken part in the debate, which has proved extremely helpful and valuable. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members who supported me on amendment No. 13—notably, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), whom I like to think of as my old sparring partner rather than my opponent across the Dispatch Box, and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who made very constructive and helpful speeches.
      I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir. G. Shaw) that there is no question of raising unreal hopes and fears of the kind and on the scale that he anticipated. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who have given careful thought to the issues. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet that predisposition to a disorder is not of itself a disability, but we are dealing with the attitudes of those who think that it is. He is worried that the clause might apply to a large number of people; I do not mind that in the least. Legislation dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race or gender quite rightly protects the whole population and, equally, all people should be protected from discrimination on the basis that they are perceived to be disabled.
      The evil against which we seek to act is discrimination by ignorant and prejudiced people. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet cited Professor Modell and was worried that the amendment might entail positive discrimination, but it would not. It would not entail the conferring of particular privileges on a particular section of the population—that is not what I am arguing for.
      7.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet was worried that we might be making a piecemeal judgment, acting somewhat impetuously to deal with one small part of a much larger complex of problems. I acknowledge that, but we have a clearly defined evil that is made more likely—unintentionally, of course—by the Bill, and my amendment proposes a remedy for that.
      I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for enabling me to meet him and Mr. Alastair Kent, the director of the Genetic Interest Group. I welcome the commitment that he was able to make about including in the protection of the Bill those who have a history of disability. That is a most constructive and important advance, and I am sure that the whole House appreciates
      890
      it. I am sorry, however, that he was not able to offer a more positive response to my amendment on the particular issue that it addresses, because he has recognised—for which I am grateful—that there are serious ethical issues and that we risk exposing people who suffer from latent conditions and genetic predispositions to unacceptable discrimination.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said how strongly he would oppose such discrimination. He is worried, however, that my amendment would open up the situation too widely. I have indicated why that is not an anxiety for me, but I recognise that, if it is a problem for the Government, it is worth looking again at drafting an amendment that might remove that unfortunate effect from the Bill. I will, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South and with the Genetic Interest Group, look to see whether it would be possible to narrow the compass and the effect of the amendment to an extent. My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that that might not be a suitable approach, but it would be analogous to the approach that the Government have adopted in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act, where specified medical conditions exempt people from having to undergo the medical test. We are therefore not in entirely uncharted territory, for all the differences between the two situations.
      I still maintain that there is a problem and that it is important to address it within the proposed legislation. I welcome the constructive willingness of my hon. Friend the Minister to look seriously at these issues, but I do not think that it will be satisfactory to leave it to subsequent legislation. I hope therefore that it will be possible for all concerned to look again at the drafting of an amendment that might meet my hon. Friend's genuine concerns, and that a new amendment will be tabled in another place. I hope that the Government will be able to favour it.
      With the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 13.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We are dealing with amendment No. 12, so there is no need to seek to withdraw amendment No. 13, because it has not, technically, been moved.
      Mr. Howarth: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SECTION 1
      Amendments made: No. 98, in page 28, line 16, leave out 'or'.
      No. 99, in page 28, line 18, after 'months', insert '; or
      (c) it can reasonably be expected to last for the rest of the life of the person affected'.
      No. 100, in line 35, leave out from 'having' to end of line 36 and insert 'that effect'.
      No. 128, in line 40, after 'affect' insert
      `the ability of the person concerned to carry out'.
      No. 129, in page 29, line 3, after `to' insert `concentrate,'.
      No. 130, in line 7, after 'affect' insert
      `the ability of the person concerned to carry out'.
      No. 131, in line 10, after 'affect' insert
      `the ability of the person concerned to carry out'.
      No. 132, in page 30, line 2, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 13 and insert '—

      (a) a person has a progressive condition (such as cancer, multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy),

      (b) as a result of that condition, he has an impairment which has (or had) an effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but

      (c) that effect is not (or was not) a substantial adverse effect, he shall be taken to have an impairment which has such a substantial adverse effect if the condition is expected to result in his having such an impairment.'.

      No. 133, in line 14, leave out 'Act' and insert `paragraph':—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 5

      CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT IS JUSTIFIED
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 3, line 30, leave out 'be' and insert 'have been'.
      No. 72, in line 31, after 'believe' insert
      `, at the time of the treatment in question,'.—[Mr. Paice.]

    Clause 6

      DUTY OF EMPLOYER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 120, in page 4, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) The following are examples of steps which an employer may have to take in relation to a disabled person in order to comply with section (1)—

      (a) making adjustments to premises;

      (b) allocating some of the disabled person's duties to another person;

      (c) transferring him to fill an existing vacancy;

      (d) altering his working hours;

      (e) assigning him to a different place of work;

      (f) allowing him to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment;

      (g) giving him, or arranging for him to be given, training;

      (h) acquiring or modifying equipment;

      (i) modifying instructions or reference manuals;

      (j) modifying procedures for testing or assessment;

      (k) providing a reader or interpreter;

      (l) providing supervision.'.

      No. 121, leave out lines 29 to 35.—[Mr. Paice.]

    Clause 7

      EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
      Amendment made: No. 122, in page 5, line 13, leave out from 'substituting' to end of line 14 and insert
      `a different number (not greater than 20) for the number for the time being specified there.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are going through the amendments at a rate of knots, but I expected the Government to explain some of them. Some of them are purely technical, but amendment No. 120 is substantial and has gone through on the nod without any explanation. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with business.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: It is, of course, open to any hon. Member to speak, provided the amendment does not
      892
      fall under the category of amendments that are called formally, which means that it will already have been put with others.

    Clause 8

      ENFORCEMENT, REMEDIES AND PROCEDURE
      Amendment made: No. 123, in page 5, line 36, leave out
      `in the case of damages'
      and insert
      `to the calculation of damages in claims in tort or (in Scotland) in reparation'.—[Mr. Paice.]

    Clause 10
      CHARITIES AND SUPPORT FOR PARTICULAR GROUPS OF PERSONS
      Amendment made: No. 73, in page 7, line 26, leave out `any' and insert `such'.—[Mr. Paice.]
    Clause 11

      ADVERTISEMENTS SUGGESTING THAT EMPLOYERS WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST DISABLED PERSONS
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 8, line 7, leave out from 'employer' to 'and' in line 8 and insert
      `has advertised the employment (whether before or after the disabled person applied for it)'.—[Mr. Paice.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) sure that he does not wish to speak to amendment No. 74?
      Mr. Wigley: No, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Clause 12

      DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO GOODS, FACILITIES AND SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 75, in page 8, line 40, leave out `Part' and insert
      `section and sections 13, 14 and 15'.—[Mr. Hague.]
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I register my dissatisfaction at the fact that an important group of amendments on the needs of carers has been dropped at this stage? Many hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee have been extensively lobbied on the subject and would have liked an opportunity to debate the subject.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I share my hon. Friend's frustration, but it is fair to point out that these amendments were tabled before the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), was given a Second Reading.
      Amendments made: No. 76 in page 9, line 2, leave out `Part applies' and insert
      `section and sections 13, 14 and 15 apply'.
      No. 77, in page 9, line 4, at end insert—
      '( ) access to and use of means of communication;
      ( ) access to and use of information services;'.
      No. 78, in line 18, leave out 'Part does' and insert
      `section and sections 13, 14 and 15 do'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 13

      MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION"
      Amendments made: No. 79, in page 9, line 42, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 12'.
      No. 80, in page 10, line 6, leave out from 'services' to `under' and insert
      `has failed to comply with any duty imposed on him by or'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 14

      CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT IS JUSTIFIED
      Amendment proposed: No. 81, in page 10, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
      '(ii) the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;'.—[Mr. Hague.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 85.
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the precise implications of amendment No. 81.
      Mr. Hague: I agreed in Committee to consider paragraph (ii) in the light of the Law Commission's recent report on incapacity and to reconsider the situation. The amendment will mean that a service provider will still be allowed to discriminate justifiably against someone if it is not able to contract, but only if it is reasonable to do so within the circumstances of the case.
      Let me illustrate that further. There are some circumstances in which a service provider is very unlikely reasonably to think that a person does not have the ability to contract and does not understand the principles behind a particular transaction—for example, when someone is buying a newspaper or a Mars bar from a corner shop. The circumstances are different when someone enters a car showroom and attempts to buy an expensive luxury car. In such a case, when there is a major purchase or credit sale involved, if the service provider has justifiable reasons to think that the disabled customer is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or giving an informed consent, he will be entitled not to provide the goods or services. We debated this matter in Committee and I made the case for it in general terms.
      The situation, therefore, turns on the individual facts of each case. The amendment deals with that point and would remove the possibility of unscrupulous service providers exploiting this paragraph of the clause as a loophole. A provider will not be able to say that because someone could not enter into an enforceable agreement to buy an expensive car he will not sell that person a newspaper either. It will depend on the particular circumstances. I hope that the amendment will be warmly welcomed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 82, in page 11, line 2, leave out `this Part' and insert 'section 13'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 15

      DUTY OF PROVIDERS OF SERVICES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 83, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
      `( ) as to what is to be included within the meaning of "practice, policy or procedure";
      ( ) as to what is not to be included within the meaning of that expression;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 17

      EXEMPTION FOR SMALL DWELLINGS
      Amendment made: No. 84, in page 13, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert—
      `(c) the shared accommodation is not storage accommodation or a means of access; and'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 19

      CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT IN RELATION TO PREMISES IS JUSTIFIED
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 15, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
      '(ii) the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 21
      VALIDITY AND REVISION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 15, line 34, after `of insert 'goods, facilities or'.—[Mr. Hague.]
    Clause 24
      CODES OF PRACTICE PREPARED BY THE COUNCIL
      Amendment made: No. 87, in page 18, line 8, after `section' insert 'and section 25'.—[Mr. Hague.]
    Clause 25

      FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT CODES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 24
      Amendments made: No. 88, in page 18, leave out lines 12 and 13.
      No. 89, in page 18, leave out from line 42 to line 2 on page 19.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 26
      CODES OF PRACTICE PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendment made: No. 90, in page 19, line 42, after `section' insert 'and section 27'.—[Mr. Hague.]
    Clause 27
      FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT CODES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 26
      Amendment made: No. 91, in page 20, leave out lines 22 and 23.—[Mr. Hague.]
    Clause 29

      HELP FOR PERSONS SUFFERING DISCRIMINATION
      Amendments made: No. 92, in page 21, line 28, leave out 'the proceedings' and insert
      `any proceedings under Part II'.
      No. 93, in page 21, line 29, after 'tribunal' insert 'in any such proceedings'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 32

      STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 94, in page 22, line 37, leave out 'under' and insert 'in pursuance of'.
      No. 95, in page 22, line 38, leave out first 'under' and insert 'in pursuance of'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 35

      APPLICATION TO CROWN ETC.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 24, line 33, after `(2)' insert `Subject to subsection (4A)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
      Mr. Paice: Hon. Members will recall that in the White Paper published in January, which was entitled "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People", we said that we would consider narrowly defined exceptions for positions with unusually demanding all-round requirements for fitness and stamina. Hon. Members will see from the amendments that they cover the armed forces, firefighters, prison officers and Ministry of Defence police, but they may wonder why there is no mention of ordinary police officers. The answer is that they clearly fall outside the Bill's provisions in any case, and mentioning them would simply cause confusion. They are not covered by part II of the Bill because they do not have contracts of service and, as they are not Crown servants, nor are they caught by the special provisions of clause 35.
      In common with civilian police forces, members of the MOD police are sworn and attested police officers. All applicants must be able to meet prescribed medical standards relative to police duties including, of course, the carriage of arms. In addition to normal police duties within MOD establishments, MOD police officers undertake specialist duties such as personnel protection, escorting nuclear convoys and acting as marine escorts to Royal Navy submarines in naval ports. Of course, I accept that some disabled people—for example, those with severe disfigurement whom we have included within the definition—may be perfectly capable of doing these jobs. Such candidates will still be able to enter these occupations.
      7.45 pm
      The point, however, is that mental and physical capacity is a critical aspect of the recruitment process, and many people are rejected on the grounds of lack of fitness. Indeed, a senior Army officer is recently reported to have criticised the low level of fitness of many applicants. To be unfit is not the same thing as being disabled under our definition, but it must be clear that all judgments about the physical and mental capacity of recruits are for the recruiting authorities to make.
      Mr. Wigley: How would the Minister distinguish between the work done by the armed services, firefighters and prison officers and that done by private companies
      896
      such as Securicor? Will he allow Securicor to have the same derogation from the Bill, or will the provision apply only to people working in the public sector?
      Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that point but, basically, the answer is that he need have no real fears—assuming that he is taking the stance that I believe him to be taking.
      It would not be right for tribunals to be involved in assessing such matters where public protection is involved because that would mean that they would effectively be second-guessing and, indeed, in some cases, perhaps overruling the recruitment officers in respect of the determination whether or not someone was fit. Of course, I recognise that it is a hard decision but I believe that the groups listed should be exempted, and I feel confident that employers in other spheres will not feel that they are unreasonable exemptions.
      I also have to point out to the House that, although we publicised our intention to make exemptions in our White Paper, I am not aware of any representations from disability organisations questioning that intention.
      Hon. Members may ask why we do not simply use the power in the Bill as drafted which allows regulations to be made to prescribe the meaning of employment. First—I hope this answers the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—it is right that we should make our intentions absolutely clear and place these specific occupations in the Bill. Secondly, I am advised by our legal advisers that the power afforded in clause 38 would not allow us to exempt further whole categories of occupations so the House need have no fear of this being the thin edge of the wedge. It would, however, allow us to be more specific about certain forms of employment, which may well be useful for the purpose of clarity.
      During yesterday's debate on small firms, the hon. Member for Caernarfon, among others, raised the question of seasonal workers. It may well be that the power in clause 38 will allow us to deal with that issue. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have clearly considered carefully the matter of exemptions, and the group of amendments is the outcome. I hope that it is clear to the House that it is a carefully thought out and justifiable but restricted list of narrowly drawn categories which, I hope, will meet with the House's approval. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke for many Opposition Members and others when he expressed his worries. This is a serious matter and it is a considerable departure from the spirit of the debate so far. Some people might say that I am introducing contention for the sake of it, but I do so because there is a need for it.
      The Government had not tabled these amendments until the end of our sittings last week. They claim that their approach to every aspect of this topic is based on consultation and on the response of the individuals involved, but there can be very little ground for suggesting that these amendments come into that category. The House has been rushed without explanation. The Minister, even in the few words that he has spoken on the amendments, has inadequately approached serious matters affecting firefighters, people in the Prison Service, and those in the armed services. The July consultation document contained nothing about the fire, prison or armed services. The Government are inviting hon.

      897
      Members to agree to the blanket exclusion of those categories, and we are clearly entitled to much more explanation than we have received.
      Having heard the Minister, I still do not know why those issues were not mentioned in the consultation document, the White Paper or the Bill, and why they were not mentioned in Committee. Out of the blue, as we rush through the final hours of this important measure, the House is simply asked without explanation to agree to the amendments. That runs counter to the approach of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Caernarfon that many of the issues have not been fully debated. That applies in relation to amendment No. 124.
      We know that 37 operational firefighters were ruled as being unfit because they were insulin-dependent diabetics. We must ask whether the amendment means that those firefighters would not be covered. They rightly and successfully challenged their employers, saying that they were unreasonable, and the courts ruled in their favour. Are we being told that new legislation would mean that such people would be excluded, despite all the information that we have, all the examination of their cases, and all the experience of those men? Their cases have been shown to be acceptable to the courts, but apparently they are not acceptable to the Government. The Minister is asking us to accept his view in the absence of views from people who represent the firefighters, and indeed the firefighters themselves. That is not acceptable to the Opposition.
      We believe that serving prison officers, firefighters and service men and women will not have the right to equal treatment, which we have embraced elsewhere, and which they seek in terms of re-employment after sustaining injuries in the course of their duties. For example, a building worker who damages his spine by falling off a ladder will rightly be entitled to equal treatment in seeking transfer to another post, but a firefighter with similar experience will not be entitled to that.
      In prisons, a distinction exists—the Minister dealt with this by sleight of hand—between the private and public sectors. He is seeking to introduce a charter for Group 4. That is not the way to do it. I worry about what will happen if that principle is extended and introduced in another place. The Government have had to face the embarrassment over Crown immunity and awards to pregnant women officers. The matter should be dealt with more formally than has happened tonight.
      The Bill's employment provisions are weak enough without the Government demanding even more rights for themselves. There is no say in what might happen in another place. No consultation has taken place. We do not know the views of the people concerned. For those reasons, among others, I am not in favour of the Government amendments and I invite the House to reject them.
      Mr. Colin Pickthall: The amendment refers to members of the fire service. Until the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) brought it up last evening, I did not realise that I was disabled, or that I would be if I were a firefighter. Were I to contract insulin-dependent diabetes, I would be instantly removed from active service as a firefighter. At best, I would be found work in an office; at worst, I would become unemployed.
      898
      I have no idea whether being an insulin-dependent diabetic affects prison officers or members of the Ministry of Defence police. I doubt it. I recognise the Minister's difficulty in trying not to extend the Bill's provisions to cover every health problem in the universe, but the key point is that he did not refer specifically to diabetes in defining the areas to be included in the disability provision.
      Diabetes is a curious condition. It does not disable, but it is counted by the fire service and by licensing authorities as though it does. It can lead to disability, but, for the most part, diabetics who are well balanced in their diabetes have a better diet. They drink and eat better things. They eat and drink less. They are generally fitter and their blood, heart and eyes are regularly checked. They are more likely to be capable of serving the public as firefighters—or whatever the service might be—than someone who does not undergo such checks and who is careless of his health patterns.
      It disturbs me intensely that we have not cleared up that matter in the Bill. I hope that it will be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon did us a service yesterday by opening up the issue, which we never even considered in Committee.
      Mr. Paice: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) suggested that the Government had somehow been unjust in tabling the amendments late. I apologise to him that we tabled them late, but I felt it was right that the House should have a chance to debate them. I shall be open with the hon. Gentleman. We were planning to introduce the amendments in the other place, but we decided that it would be wrong to do so. Our decision was made after careful deliberation, as I said in my opening remarks. That is why we felt that it was right and proper, even at this late stage, to table the amendments. If changes occur in the House of Lords—I am not prejudging the issue, but the hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what would happen there—the amendments will come back to this House for further debate. However, we believed that it was right to deal with the matter tonight.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that we had not consulted on the subject. The statement in the White Paper is clear. It specifically said in paragraph 3.9 that the new right
      "will cover the public and private sectors, although the Government is considering certain narrowly-defined exceptions for positions with unusually demanding all-round requirements for fitness and stamina."
      As I said in my opening remarks, I am not aware of any representations or questions in relation to who might be included—not that it would take a great deal of forethought to work out who might be included.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to rushing through the final hours. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also questioned the haste with which matters were proceeding. If he is concerned about the rush through the final stages of the Bill, the hon. Member for Monklands, West should discuss that with his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). We were trying to accommodate the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and his party. I apologise to the House for the late tabling of the amendments, but it was right that they

      899
      should be proposed at this stage, and that the House should have a chance to consider them. I hope that the House will approve them.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Madam Deputy Speaker—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will need the leave of the House to speak again.
      Mr. Clarke: I was about to ask for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your perspicacity never ceases to amaze me.
      With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the Minister. His first speech was marginally better than his second—and his first speech was awful. He quoted some extremely vague comments from the White Paper and, intelligent though firefighters are, well informed though prison officers are, and well educated as the people in the other services are—Group 4 is especially well informed—I cannot help believing that it will have escaped their notice that he was talking about them.
      8 pm
      Mr. Paice rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the Minister, although I hope that he will not take too long.
      Mr. Paice: I certainly shall not. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned perhaps he will tell the House why since the White Paper was published he has not taken the opportunity to find out precisely which groups the Government were thinking of excluding.
      Mr. Clarke: We spent weeks and weeks in Committee seeking precisely that information. If the Minister re-examines his speech he will find that he was distinctly unhelpful and did not encourage us to get down to the details.
      I shall briefly give my reasons for asking the House to divide on the issue. First, the Government have been vague. Secondly, they have been sneaky. Thirdly, and most importantly, I do not believe that we should send to another place something that the Lords will think that the House of Commons has endorsed after full consideration. I do not believe that that would be the will of the House. It is right to make it clear to the other place that the Government rushed the matter through and we have not considered it in detail.
      Those details have an overwhelming potential importance for those concerned, so for that reason and for the sake of the reputation of the House as well as in the interests of the firefighters and the people in the Prison Service and other services, I ask the House to support us in opposing the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 270.

      Division No.118]

      [8.01 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Ashby, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Ancram, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      900

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forth, Eric

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Booth, Hartley

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Gallie, Phil

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Bowis, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorst, Sir John

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Butcher, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butler, Peter

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Butterfill, John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Churchill, Mr

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Dover, Den

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evennett, David

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Faber, David

      Legg, Barry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      901

      Lidington, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Luff, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maclean, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Speed, Sir Keith

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Madel, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Malone, Gerald

      Spring, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Sproat, Iain

      Marland, Paul

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stephen, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Stewart, Allan

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Sumberg, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mills, Iain

      Sykes, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thomason, Roy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tracey, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Tredinnick, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trend, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Page, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Viggers, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pickles, Eric

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Ward, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Watts, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Whitney, Ray

      Richards, Rod

      Whittingdale, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wood, Timothy

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Tom

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Michael Bates.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Alton, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ashton, Joe

      Allen, Graham

      Austin-Walker, John

      902

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Barnes, Harry

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Barron, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fraser, John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bell, Stuart

      Galloway, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Garrett, John

      Benton, Joe

      George, Bruce

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gerrard, Neil

      Berry, Roger

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Betts, Clive

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blunkett, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Boateng, Paul

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bradley, Keith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Grocott, Bruce

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

      Gunnell, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hain, Peter

      Burden, Richard

      Hall, Mike

      Byers, Stephen

      Hanson, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Henderson, Doug

      Cann, Jamie

      Heppell, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chidgey, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hodge, Margaret

      Church, Judith

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Coffey, Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corston, Jean

      Hutton, John

      Cox, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Keen, Alan

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Denham, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dixon, Don

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobson, Frank

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lewis, Terry

      Dowd, Jim

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Litherland, Robert

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Livingstone, Ken

      Eastham, Ken

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Enright, Derek

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Etherington, Bill

      Loyden, Eddie

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fatchett, Derek

      McCartney, Ian

      Faulds, Andrew

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fisher, Mark

      McFall, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McKelvey, William

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      903

      McLeish, Henry

      Rogers, Allan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rooker, Jeff

      McMaster, Gordon

      Rooney, Terry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      MacShane, Denis

      Rowlands, Ted

      McWilliam, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Madden, Max

      Salmond, Alex

      Maddock, Diana

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mandelson, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marek, Dr John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Short, Clare

      Martlew, Eric

      Simpson, Alan

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Snape, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, Alan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Miller, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Morley, Elliot

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Straw, Jack

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Touhig, Don

      Olner, Bill

      Tyler, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Vaz, Keith

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Parry, Robert

      Wallace, James

      Pearson, Ian

      Walley, Joan

      Pendry, Tom

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pike, Peter L

      Watson, Mike

      Pope, Greg

      Welsh, Andrew

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Radice, Giles

      Wilson, Brian

      Randall, Stuart

      Wise, Audrey

      Raynsford, Nick

      Worthington, Tony

      Redmond, Martin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Reid, Dr John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rendel, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Mr. George Mudie and

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 125, in page 25, line 2, at end insert—
      '(4A) Part II does not apply to service—

      (a) as a member of the Ministry of Defence Police; or

      (b) as a prison officer.

      (4B) Part II does not apply to service as a member of a fire brigade who is or may be required by his terms of service to engage in fire fighting.
      (4C) It is hereby declared (for the avoidance of doubt) that Part II does not apply to service in any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.'.
      No. 126, in line 7, at end insert—
      ' "fire brigade" means a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act 1947;
      904
      "Ministry of Defence Police" means the force established under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987;
      "prison officer" means a person who is a prison officer within the meaning of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, apart from those who are—

      (a) custody officers within the meaning of Part I of the Act of 1994; or

      (b) prisoner custody officers within the meaning of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or Chapter II or III of Part VIII of the Act of 1994;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Clause 38

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 96, in page 26, line 3, leave out from 'means' to 'a person' in line 4.
      No. 97, leave out lines 7 and 8.
      No. 127, in line 16, at end insert—
      ' "mental impairment" does not have the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983 but the fact that an impairment would be a mental impairment for the purposes of that Act does not prevent it from being a mental impairment for the purposes of this Act;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Schedule 2

      ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEDURE
      Amendment made: No. 101, in page 31, line 45, leave out 'conciliation officer' and insert
      `person appointed in connection with arrangements under section 22'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Schedule 4

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 134, in page 34, line 24, at end insert—
      `. In section 136(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals to Employment Appeal Tribunal), at the end insert—
      "(ff) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.".'.—[Mr. Hague.]

    Schedule 6

      MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendments made: No. 102, in page 36, line 1, after '2(5)', insert
      'for "him" substitute "it" and'.
      No. 103, in line 35, leave out '1989' and insert '1986'.
      No. 104, in line 40, at end insert—
      `. In section 16(4) and (6) omit "or (in Scotland) the subject of'.'.
      No. 105, in page 38, leave out lines 3 to 5.
      No. 106, in page 40, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 107, in page 43, line 17, leave out 'and'.
      No. 108, in line 18, at end insert
      `and subsections (3) and (4) below'.
      No. 109, in line 28, leave out 'Secretary' and insert `the Secretary'.
      No. 110, in page 44, line 25, at end insert
      `and in paragraph 3(7) for "his" substitute "its".'.
      No. 111, in page 45, line 10, at end insert—
      `(c) in the definition of "relevant compromise contract" for "or Article" substitute "Article" and at the end insert "or section 9(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995".'.
      No. 112, leave out line 31.
      No. 113, leave out line 35.—[Mr. Hague.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.18 pm
      Mr. Hague: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      At this point we should pause for a second and raise our eyes from the level of detail that we have debated in Committee and on Report and remind ourselves of several things about the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is a landmark Bill. It is the only comprehensive Bill for disabled people ever introduced by a British Government. It will mark the United Kingdom out as one of the world leaders and the leader in Europe in the move towards comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. It is a profound measure with significant implications for every part of the economy.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Before the Minister awards himself an Oscar, will he satisfy the House that he is referring to the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill?
      Mr. Hague: I am satisfied, and the House will be satisfied, that I am referring to the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman interrupted me at that point because I was about to be generous to many people on the Opposition Benches as well as to many of my hon. Friends. I acknowledge that the Bill embodies a goal for which many people have worked tirelessly over the years. They include hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are present in the Chamber tonight, as well as campaigners outside the House and many disabled people.
      We owe it to all the people who have campaigned for such legislation to get it right. That means producing legislation that wins the support and active co-operation of all employers and service providers who must deliver the benefits that we want to flow from it. I also pay tribute to the constructive approach that has been adopted by hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee and on Report. I am convinced and I think that it is clear that the points that have divided the House have been of far less significance than some basic principles that now unite it.
      I also pay tribute to the consideration of detail that has gone on behind the scenes. Organisations of and for disabled people and many other groups have helped us to improve the Bill. The improvements that we have seen effected, particularly on Report, are due in no small way to their labours as well as to the efforts of hon. Members.
      It is all too easy for ambitious law to become ambiguous law. Many hon. Members said during our debates that they did not want the legislation to be a beanfeast for lawyers. I certainly agree with that. We must be particularly careful in matters of disability discrimination, in which there could easily be far more uncertainty than in the sex and race legislation dealt with in the past. Therefore, the Government's guiding principle has been to achieve certainty wherever possible so that employers and service providers know what is meant by disability and we do not have a vague concept that might cover all kinds of people who never have been or may never be disabled.
      906
      We want to achieve certainty so that employers and service providers know what they have to do to provide an accessible environment for disabled people. The Bill has the potential to affect the employers of many thousands of disabled employees in all manner of jobs and occupations. It has the potential to affect about 750,000 businesses, from broadcasting and banking to greengrocers and newsagents. That is why we have made sure that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to be applied right across the board and why we have had the good sense to allow that matters such as education and transport deserve to be treated in a different way. I am pleased that we have been able to make or plan to make in another place additional provisions on those matters.
      We want to achieve certainty so that disabled people know how to obtain redress if employers and service providers fall short of the standards expected; hence, we want to have a national network of advice points, whether placing, assessment and counselling teams or citizens advice bureaux, so that disabled people have somewhere local and amenable to which they can turn when they need help. We have made statutory provision for codes of practice and guidance so that those who provide advice and support know what is reasonable in a given set of circumstances.
      While we have ensured that the Bill abides by those principles, the Government have been prepared to listen and to make sensible adjustments. In our debates on amendment No. 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), earlier today, we accepted that we should widen the definition of disability to include those with a history of disability. We have accepted that the small employers' exemption should be reviewed for effectiveness and that we should remove the power to increase the number of employers exempted.
      We have accepted that the Government's policy of requiring transport to be made accessible to disabled people on a replacement basis in the future should be, for the sake of certainty, written into the Bill. We have included measures against discrimination in the sale and letting of property. We have undertaken to look again at a variety of other matters. Our approach of flexibility founded on solid principles is reflected in the Bill. I believe that it is the right approach to this difficult and complicated subject and I commend it to the House.
      8.25 pm
      Mr. Tom Clarke: We have had some interesting debates in the past two days. I am sure that the Minister shares my view that the public awareness of the debates has been interesting. As we have sat here, I have received note after note inviting me to raise issues which I would love to raise, but which, alas, time does not allow me to do. I am sure that the Minister has had the same experience and that his electorate has followed our proceedings.
      Only two minutes ago I was requested in neat writing, better than mine, to raise on Third Reading the issue of access to work and the possible impact of introducing reasonable accommodation. That was a specific reference which a member of the public attached to Government amendment No. 120. So I hope that in our democratic processes members of the public will not think that we have not taken their views on board. Alas, because of the limited time—we could have debated the matter for a

      907
      whole week, if not more, so perhaps we should have a party conference on disability—we could not take all the points on board.
      I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy; I shall perhaps return to that later. It has been the ambition of many people inside and outside the House to make 1995 the year of disabled people's rights. The Bill is not adequate to justify that title, but we remain hopeful that progress can be made. The Government have been forced to tear up their "exemptions"—I use the word in the Bill—for education and transport vehicles. We count that as progress on two of the most objectionable features of the Government's original proposals.
      The Government have promised to move new clauses in another place that will do something to improve the position of disabled pupils and students in education and will apply the right of access to public transport by road and rail. We shall wait to see the contents before we pass final judgment, but the fact that Ministers have abandoned the appalling exemptions—to use their words and the words in the Bill—is a major victory for disabled people. I congratulate disabled people and organisations of and for disabled people on those achievements.
      Ministers have also conceded a little ground on the exemption of small firms by removing the option to extend that exemption to firms with 20 or more employees. However, what they have given with one hand they have taken away with the other by introducing at the very end of our proceedings today a new employment exemption for particular services, which we have only just discussed, and discussed inadequately. Ministers have given ground in a number of areas in response to the positive arguments that my hon. Friends and others have raised during the past 10 weeks. Their concessions do not do enough to transform the Bill into the kind of comprehensive measure which we would have liked to see, but they give us some encouragement that further improvements will be possible.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, we are pleased that the Government have now conceded part of what we sought in Committee in terms of access to information and to the means of communication. We do not regard the Government's concession as sufficient, and their explanation for failing to impose a requirement on manufacturers to provide information on goods in an accessible form is unconvincing.
      The Government have fiddled a little with their definition of disability, but they have not addressed the central issue. The basis on which protection will be provided under the Bill remains—despite all our efforts—a narrow, medically based definition of disability, and we are therefore disappointed. The real issue is that discrimination arises from prejudice more often than from medical assessments. People need protection from prejudices against disability, whether those prejudices are based on an accurate assessment of a medical condition or on ignorance alone, as we have found so often in discussing the matter.
      The Government have added some substance to the definition of what arrangements employers should make to support disabled employees. Those may be helpful to employers and to disabled people alike, although we would be anxious to ensure that the examples of appropriate steps are not interpreted as an exhaustive list—far from it.
      908
      The most important concessions have been achieved on transport and education, and we heard about those matters this afternoon. We have argued from the beginning that it made no sense to exclude disabled people from those gateways to opportunity in a measure intended to outlaw disability discrimination. We have argued for a programme to be introduced under which all public transport vehicles should be made accessible. Ministers have fought a long rearguard action against that, but they have finally conceded defeat today and we welcome that. Not only do we welcome the inclusion of road and rail transport, but we look forward to that principle being embraced by fishing and ferry services as well.
      I do not underestimate the achievement of this House in producing the measure—why should I? It is a great credit to the democratic processes of our parliamentary representative government that we have squeezed those concessions at almost the 11th hour from the Government. We welcome the access to vehicles such as buses and trains, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) eloquently argued—we want the measure to apply to ferries and shipping services as well.
      All this has not been achieved by sleight of hand. I welcome sincerely the presence in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), for whom I have the highest regard. I believe that, within the ministerial restraints and constraints which exist, the right hon. Gentleman fought hard to achieve the measures which have been announced tonight. My only regret is that, as a distinguished parliamentarian, he was not able to speak on behalf of the Government today. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman should be very proud of his achievements, and we recognise that.
      I also pay tribute to the input of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) who, in introducing their private Members' Bills, clearly provided a lever which compelled the Government to recognise public opinion and the opinions of the House.
      I recognise that we in the Labour party have had support on the issues from hon. Members from other parties, including the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The hon. Lady fought her corner superbly in Committee. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and hon. Members from all political opinions in Northern Ireland have been absolutely firm in their demands on the issue, and they have every reason to be proud of themselves.
      It would be an absolute omission were I not to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose name will always be associated with civil rights for disabled people. When some people were questioning at an early stage whether two Bills could be debated in one Session of Parliament, my right hon. Friend was steadfast, forthright and determined. As always, my right hon. Friend represents the very best in the all-party group which deals with disability.
      The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) played a noble part today in inviting the Government to introduce their concessions, and he can associate himself with those achievements also.
      The issue of transport remains important and, although we welcome the concessions, we will be watching what happens in another place where noble Friends such as Lord Ashley, Baroness Masham and others who have fought so often and so hard on the issues will be vigilant.

      909
      I wish briefly to refer to the issue of taxis, which we were not able to address on Report because of the procedures of the House. I realise that the Minister and the House are facing a difficult situation in which there are strong opinions on both sides. The achievements in London ought to be applauded, and they could represent a model for elsewhere. However, strong representations have been made on the issue, not least by some hon. Friends, including the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
      The excellent Employers Forum on Disability, whose representatives I met the other week in the presence of Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union, advised us to look cautiously at the issue of taxis. There are two opinions on taxis, and I hope that we will have reached by the end of our deliberations the consensus which disability—outstanding among all other issues—seems to attract.
      The House is at its best on disability issues, and today's debate has been no exception. I am sure that the debate on taxis will continue, and I would like to assure my hon. Friends and many others that we recognise that there are at least two separate views on the issue.
      On education, the Government recognised the force of our arguments, and I look forward to the details of the new rights for disabled students which the Minister mentioned yesterday. I welcome also the obligation on individual schools and colleges to say what they will do to improve access. Having argued the point yesterday, I accept that there is a big responsibility on them to do so. We hope that suitable enforcement procedures will be introduced at the same time, so that those institutions that do not make adequate provision are placed under some obligation to improve matters within a reasonable time.
      On education and transport, we will watch closely to see how clause 12 will be redrafted. We want the total exemption of those services to be replaced by a clear statement that they are subject to the law in the same way as other service providers. Of course, we accept that particular provision must be made for what must be done when, but it is essential that the new version of clause 12 clearly establishes the principle that those services are under a duty not to discriminate.
      In spite of the Government's concessions on transport, education and so forth, they remain stubbornly opposed to the most important change that Opposition Members—with some support from Conservative Members—have suggested, which is to give adequate enforcement powers to the Government's proposed National Disability Council. Until they do so, no matter how much the Bill may be improved in its scope and coverage, it will not be adequate because it will not provide disabled people with the powerful backing required to eliminate discrimination.
      Although Parliament has indeed been at its best, even given the fact that we did not achieve all that we wanted, sadly the same could not be said of the British media. The Guardian today made up for lost ground in a very interesting leader entitled, "Enabling the Disabled", which appealed to the Minister as much as it did to me. One or two of the profound comments in it are relevant to this debate. It said:
      "For 15 years they"
      the Government—
      910
      "could see no discrimination, hear no discrimination, nor smell no discrimination against disabled people. Then, hey presto, they were faced with a private member's bill in the last parliamentary session which they were only able to stop by ordering backbench sycophants to torpedo it"—
      Mr. Berry: Where are they now?
      Mr. Clarke: As I was about to say, they are not much in evidence tonight. I have looked in vain for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), but I think that she got the message last time around.
      The Guardian concluded appropriately by saying:
      "What is needed—as the history of race and sex discrimination demonstrates—is an enforcement agency. Even Conservative supporters—see last week's Guardian Society—are insisting on this change. Peers take note. Without it, the whole edifice collapses."
      I could not have put it better myself.
      We have taken into account the views and pledges that the Government have expressed and we do not want to be churlish. I am confident that the Government will come under renewed pressure on the matter in another place. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) set his colleagues an example last night and today, which others may follow if this matter comes back from another place as a result of a successful amendment, or perhaps more than one.
      Opposition Members will certainly continue to set a high priority on the means of enforcement and on turning good intentions into real progress. If we achieve that, whatever the other limitations of this legislation, we will have gone a long way towards making this the year of disabled people's rights. Unless and until we do, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, will remain the best hope for progress and I say so proudly as one of his colleagues.
      We shall not, however, oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, weak and inadequate though it remains, despite the concessions that I welcomed—I do not want to be churlish about them. However, we look forward to seeing it much improved before it is placed on the statute book. We hope that the House will have a further opportunity to consider some of those improvements.
      We accept that the most important concessions achieved are those on transport and education, but we hope that, when the Bill goes to another place and in the intervening weeks or months, the Government will have the opportunity to reflect not simply on our debates but on the views of organisations of and for disabled persons—heavens, we all admire them. In that cold January day on the eve of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, they stood in cold Westminster Hall, sending green cards to Members, some of whom responded—some did not. They did not even have access to loudspeaker equipment. I hope that the people there that day and the many other disabled people and carers who organised similar events and meetings throughout the country will feel that at the end of the day, despite their misgivings and their understandable scepticism, there is yet something to be said for representative parliamentary democracy. In that spirit, and as a tribute to them, we will not oppose the Third Reading, but will act with vigilance on the events that take place.
      8.45 pm
      Sir John Hannam: In the same spirit as the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), I am pleased to follow what he said and I am pleased that the Third Reading will not be opposed. We have had two fruitful days of consideration of this important Bill and, although the Government were not able to concede on two of the early issues—the commission and the small firms exclusion figure—since then, thanks to the willingness of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to discuss and negotiate improvements with us, the Bill has been much improved and strengthened. The key areas of education and transport are now included and my hon. Friends the Ministers in both those Departments are to be thanked.
      The provision of information, definitions of disability and the history of disability, leave of absence at work and other employment assistance are now included and other improvements, through Government amendments, have all combined to make this anti-discrimination legislation a truly historic step forward for disabled people.
      Towards the end of today's debate, we found that we were unable to discuss two important areas—civic rights, on which I was hoping to move some amendments, and leave of absence provisions. I will touch on those so that my hon. Friend the Minister can deal with some of the issues that we would have raised.
      The leave of absence provisions, on which the Government moved amendment No. 120, relate to responsibilities that employers must have for their disabled employees or those who may become disabled while working and who may need a period of leave for rehabilitation or retraining. We also recognise that a newly disabled person, even after rehabilitation, might not be able to continue in the same employment.
      The provision of leave of absence as a part of reasonable adjustment is the motivation behind such options as disability leave, which was an initiative developed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and was launched less than two years ago by the then Secretary of State for Employment, who is now Secretary of State for Education.
      The pilot scheme has enjoyed widespread support from employers and organisations representing disabled people. The steering group includes the Midland bank, Barclays bank, the Employers Forum on Disability, the Trades Union Congress and the Department of Employment, in addition to the various disability organisations. It would have been incomprehensible not to have recognised the potential of that initiative by including in the Bill provisions to enable disability leave to be given. I welcomed, therefore, Government amendment No. 120, which we unfortunately did not have a chance to debate in any detail. I put that on the record because it is an important part of the changes to the Bill today.
      Civic rights, as I term them, were the other important issue that we did not discuss because of pressure of business. The amendments on the Order Paper were aimed at providing disabled people with reasonable access to the process of politics and the justice system. One was designed as a probing measure, to ensure that adjustments
      912
      are provided under part III of the Bill, if required by disabled persons, to enable them to serve as an elected or appointed member, for example as a Member of Parliament or a councillor, or if required by a disabled person wishing to make representations to an elected or appointed person. For example the law debars a deaf and dumb person from standing as a parliamentary candidate. There is only one elected deaf councillor, despite the wonderful example in this place of the co-chairman of the all-party disablement group, the noble Lord Ashley.
      Another area which we could not discuss today was access to the justice system. It is vital for disabled people to gain full access to the judicial system and legal proceedings. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill covered the judicial system and legal proceedings and that the design of new Crown and county courts should enable disabled people to have independent access into and within those buildings. While "The Court Standard and Design Guide" states that all new court rooms and those undergoing significant alterations must comply with part M of the building regulations, that does not deal with the problem of access to existing court rooms. The building regulations do not cover many of the adaptations and facilities that would be required by disabled people in court, nor do they specify monitoring and maintenance—many of the sound enhancement schemes for hard of hearing people installed under part M do not work. A survey carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1993 showed that 44 per cent. of Crown and county courts had inaccessible main entrances; 59 per cent. had no disabled toilets; and only 6 per cent. had facilities for deaf and hard of hearing people.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would have wished to comment on those points, had he had an opportunity to do so, and I hope that he will accept the concerns felt by disabled people about problems of access to courts, justice and juries.
      A year ago, I and my colleagues on the all-party disablement group were desperately trying to persuade the Government to adopt positive anti-discrimination legislation. As the hon. Member for Monklands, West described, it took a long, hot summer of campaigning and applying pressure, with lobbies of Parliament, marches, demonstrations and debates in the House. But following the personal intervention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with the previous Minister responsible for disabled people, who was in the Chamber a few moments ago, we began to see some progress. A somewhat inadequate consultation document first appeared on the scene. That changed for the better into a nearly satisfactory Bill and White Paper. Now, having filled the gaps during Report, we have reached the point where a good measure is heading for the other place, where a number of further changes will no doubt be implemented by members of the all-party group, which is more than adequately represented there.
      Many hon. Members are still committed to the private Member's Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which will also continue its progress through the House. As one of those supporters, I believe in the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. This Bill has now become a nice plump bird and is on its way to the statute book before the summer is out. I therefore congratulate all those who have worked so hard, both within Parliament and in all those organisations outside. I hope that they regard their efforts as well rewarded.

      913
      I therefore hope that the House will give this landmark Bill an unopposed Third Reading.
      8.53 pm
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I was deeply moved, as others on both sides of the House must have been, by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He has shown a shining sincerity in arguing the claims of disabled and other needful people from the day that he entered the House. He is worthy of the highest admiration, and his Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), is also entitled to our deepest respect. He has brought enormous skill, humanity and commitment to his new sphere of responsibility, and I thank him most warmly for all that he has contributed to our debates on the Bill.
      The Bill was heralded as an historic advance for disabled people. In fact it marks only the end of an historic retreat from contemporary standards of protecting disabled people across the developed world. We used to lead the world in legislating on new help for disabled people; for example, in legislating on access to the built environment, the first country ever to do so, 25 years ago. We pioneered as well, also in the 1970s, such entirely new benefits as the mobility allowance, the disabled housewife's allowance and the invalid care allowance.
      The Government's measure is, of course, their latest attempt to assuage the public outrage provoked by the wholly scandalous tactics used to obstruct the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill ever since I drafted and first presented it to the House in 1991. There were no less than three personal statements of unreserved apology for misleading the Speaker and this House in debates on the Bill. They were three of only four such statements that I have witnessed in 31 years as a Member of Parliament.
      There are those who ask today why, now that the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to accept the necessity of legislation, we do not just welcome them as repentant sinners and work further to amend and improve their, by common consent, pallid alternative to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. That is not my description; it is how disabled people themselves have described the Government's Bill as compared with our Bill.
      A woman who is well disposed to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill wrote to me recently to say:
      "Now that you have won and the Government at long last are having to legislate, why don't you simply claim victory and amend their Bill to your liking?"
      Nothing would have been more agreeable to me than to have been able further to amend, at will, the Government's proposals and thus to end the parliamentary battle I began in 1979 when I appointed the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Large. But changes to their Bill on the scale required to make it acceptable to disabled people have proved impossible. Even had they not been, why, having invented the wheel, should we have had to waste time trying to adapt the Government's unacceptable imitation of one?
      As well as attempting to make the Government's Bill more acceptable, are we not right to go on trying to enact our own? Another question posed is why, even if we are unable further to improve the Government's Bill, can we not accept what is on offer as a major step forward after
      914
      13 years of systematic obstruction and then, in the years ahead, build on what their Bill achieves? But in the view of disabled people and those who work to help them, parts of the Government's Bill will actually increase discrimination against disabled people.
      They cite first the Government's proposal to end the 3 per cent. jobs quota, which they argue will undoubtedly make matters worse. The Rights Now campaign, whose affiliates include the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, cites as well the Government's pointlessly complicated and over-restrictive definition of discrimination. It attacks what it calls
      "The Government's complete failure to understand how disability discrimination works."
      It also states:
      "The Government's Bill contains a host of defences and potential justifications for discriminatory treatment which are not present in the legislation on sex and race. The accumulated effect of these loopholes will render it almost impossible for a disabled person to challenge discrimination."
      Such pointed criticism leaves scant room for any doubt about what Britain's 6.5 million disabled people think of the assumption that the Government's Bill will solve most of their problems.
      The measure we have been debating today is but piecemeal reform. It attempts to divide the indivisible. Look at the employment problems of disabled people, not least those of the blind, of whom the Royal National Institute for the Blind says only 17 per cent. are in work. That figure is a shocking comment on the avoidable hardship inflicted on them.
      The employment prospects of blind and other severely disabled people will only be improved if, while removing discrimination against them, we recognise also the importance to disabled people of improving their access to better training opportunities, among other essential requirements which must be met if more and more of them are to end their dependence on social security and enjoy the dignity of becoming taxpayers. Yet this is not what the Bill achieves.
      That is why Members in all parts of the House will go on insisting on stronger and more enforceable protection for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. That is also why our campaign will go on for as long as it takes to secure full civil rights and equal citizenship for them. Without the rights that everyone else can take for granted, disabled people are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made even harder to bear by preventable social handicaps for which there is no moral justification.
      Why on earth should disabled people any longer have to put up with rights inferior to those of everyone else and inferior as well to those enjoyed by disabled people all across the developed world? I refer, among other countries, to New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France and Sweden. Why should the Government here have assumed for so long that employers in all those countries are more capable than British employers of contributing to the achievement of social progress for disabled people? It is because our disabled fellow citizens should no longer have to put up with inferior rights that the campaign for the social fairness they crave must go on; and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, go on it will.
      9.2 pm
      Ms Lynne: I am delighted that the Government have changed their minds on several aspects of the Bill, particularly on education and transport. I am also pleased by their decision to extend the definition in clause 1 to cover people with a history of illness or disability. That is a step in the right direction. We must not lose sight of the fact, however, that they have not moved a lot on other parts of the Bill. In fact, the Government have failed to respond to the majority of the amendments that we tabled in Committee and on Report.
      I cannot count the number of amendments that other hon. Members and I tabled in Committee. Ministers remained immovable on all of them. They did not accept any amendments to do with education and transport, but I am pleased that they accepted certain changes on Report. The Government have bowed to pressure from all the disabled people's organisations that have lobbied them and those hon. Members who have worked over the months to ensure that improvements relating to transport and education were included in the Bill.
      Those changes are a triumph of democracy over dogma, but the Government have not changed their mind on much. They gave way slightly on small businesses, but they have not moved on the call to establish a commission. It was extremely important that we should have had an organisation with teeth, rather than the mere advisory council that the Government proposed. I am grateful, however, that the Government agreed to extend the definition in clause 1 to cover someone with a history of mental illness.
      I continue to believe that disabled people will feel extremely let down by the Bill, as will carers. In Committee we discussed the problems that carers had, and I was disappointed tonight that we did not get round to debating in the House the amendments especially relating to carers. I was sorry that those amendments were withdrawn without debate. I hope that they will be retabled and debated in the Lords, because an immense number of carers have lobbied hon. Members, and they have some very serious problems of discrimination relating to their caring duties.
      I know that the Government will prevent the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill from obtaining its passage through the House, and I am sorry about that. I am sad, because that is the Bill that we should pass into law in future. The Disability Discrimination Bill is welcome as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. However much we debate the Bill and however much it is amended in the Lords, disabled people will continue to be denied their basic human rights, whatever the Government say.
      The way in which Ministers and the Government have moved on certain amendments is a step in the right direction, but they were forced to take those steps, sometimes at the last minute; suddenly there was an announcement from Ministers. In the past two days—
      Mr. Paice indicated dissent.
      Ms Lynne: The Minister shakes his head, but we had an announcement about education yesterday and an announcement about transport today—a last-minute conversion. The Government did not move in Committee,
      916
      so they were forced to move by all the pressure that they had from hon. Members and from disabled people throughout the country.
      However, I continue to believe that the Government have not gone far enough, especially as regards the commission. There is no point in legislation unless it has teeth. I hope that the Government will not suppose that they have done enough. Disabled people will continue to fight because they want the same equality as everyone else. They do not want more; they do not want less; they want the same. I believe that they have a right to expect that and that they deserve no less.
      Although I welcome some of the movement by the Government, I wish that they had gone further.
      9.10 pm
      Mr. Pickthall: Several of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall confine myself to revisiting the announcements that the Minister made yesterday about the education part of the Bill. Incidentally, I complain that, that important debate having been confined to one hour, more than half of that hour was taken by the Minister giving us some interesting and important new thoughts, which we did not have time properly to consider.
      It is obvious, from column 746 of yesterday's Hansard, that the Minister considers that the existing Education Act 1993 and the code of practice do the business in respect of integration into mainstream schools. He complained that the new clauses that were tabled by hon. Members would cut across the provisions of the 1993 Act. However, in column 750, his proposals to amend the 1993 Act within the Disability Discrimination Bill in substantial ways were revealed, so that, in any case, the Minister's proposals cut across the 1993 Act. We shall in effect have two separate Acts controlling access to schools for disabled young people. It is important that that is carefully considered before it goes to the other place.
      The Minister also said that the Government's measures have given an enormous boost to special education. That is fine; I accept that, but they have also presented councils with enormous resource problems and resources have not been forthcoming in sufficient quantities from the Government to enable local education authorities to put into practice what the 1993 Act expects.
      The Minister did say—I agree with him entirely—that integration into mainstream education is not a simple issue of parental choice. Of course it is not; but does he not recognise that section 21 of the 1993 Act includes that phrase "efficient use of resources" as the universal caveat by which local authorities have a let-out from providing mainstream education for many disabled pupils? Many local authorities have been able to make progress only where such provision has been tied to statementing provision, with all its legal implications. They cannot even keep up with the legal requirements of statementing, never mind make further progress.
      We must bear in mind the revenue consequences of integration. As long as mainstreaming is expected of local education authorities while resources continue to be cut and as long as the 1993 Act contains a caveat enabling LEAs to use the shortage of resources as a reason to refuse mainstream provision, many parents will have no choice and no system of redress. I do not blame local authorities for that in many instances. Nor do I blame the many

      917
      schools that resist taking students with disabilities because they cannot accommodate them, in terms of either physical access or revenue.
      There are frequent cases in which there is a conflict between the two parties, the parents and the school LEA, and both sides might well be right. There have been many cases, including that of Chloe McCollom from Lewisham, a Down's syndrome child who has not been provided with a place in mainstream education, Emma and Alison Gibbs from Suffolk, who also suffer from Down's syndrome and have not been given places in mainstream secondary education, Zahrah Manuel in Campden, Angharad Duffield in Avon and Nicky Crane in my constituency. Two more cases were discussed in today's edition of The Guardian involving Natalie Dance of East Sussex and Alan Dean—I think the name is an alias—in the west midlands. All those children are disabled in one way or another. Their parents are desperate to get them into mainstream education and are having to fight their battles with no back-up. There will still be no back-up for them once the Bill is passed if it remains as the Minister intends.
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People seemed to assume yesterday that the new clauses proposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House were meant to abolish special schools, but that is not so. The Minister was right to say at column 746 of yesterday's Hansard that not all disable children be integrated into mainstream education and that some parents prefer special schools. However, if the Minister assumes that the improvement of the range of choice by legal back-up will mean that most or all parents of disabled children will opt for mainstream education, that should tell him something about what parents want for their children.
      The Minister continued by saying that it was absurd or impossible for local authorities to spread their access provisions too thinly. He said:
      "Instead of several schools in an authority, each with excellent resources, being able to take many pupils with a wide range of special needs, we would end up with nearly all schools in that authority with a few ramps, no lifts and improved curriculum access for only a small minority of pupils … It is certainly not what the Government want".—[Official Report, 27 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 747.]
      I understand what the Minister is talking about in terms of shortage of resources, but he is also talking about the creation of ghetto schools, which have the resources to provide for children with disabilities and special needs. That would remove choice for thousands of parents and children. Parents will have to remove their children from education in their own communities and ship them across to another part of the local authority area to a school that has the necessary resources or they will not have a choice at all. Making full access the norm rather than the exception will take a long time. The Minister's statement yesterday seemed to suggest that it should not even start. As he said,
      "It is certainly not what the Government want".
      When the Bill goes to the Lords, the Minister must confront the issue of increasing selection in our schools, particularly secondary schools. Only yesterday, Manchester grammar school said that it wanted to come back into the fold and be a state school, but only on the strict understanding that it would control its selection process. Up and down the country there is evidence,
      918
      particularly in grant-maintained schools, that selection is taking place on all sorts of strange grounds, not just academic ability.
      The Minister said that schools will have new responsibilities to report to parents—and presumably to local authorities and to the Secretary of State—about improvements in disabled access. That is a good move which we must welcome. However, in those circumstances, schools will merely have to ensure that they are not out of step with other schools. Schools that do not want to go to the trouble of admitting disabled students could ensure that the description of their facilities is not good or is even offputting. I believe that we need an enabling legal framework and back-up for parents who come up against those problems, which will continue to exist under the Bill as it is now constituted.
      The Minister also made some interesting, and I think on the whole encouraging, announcements in response to the detailed concerns that were advanced by Labour Members in Committee about access to further and higher education. I do not have time to deal with them in detail but, as the Minister mentioned part-time access yesterday, I must ask about the chance of making the disabled students allowance available for part-time students. That is a major problem. Many students must study part time because the nature of their disability prevents them from studying and progressing at the same speed as non-disabled students.
      The Minister said that he would require colleges to provide access to disabled students "as a condition of grant". That is a tremendous step forward. The Minister also mentioned the duty of the Further Education Funding Council to report to the Secretary of State, which I think will prove an interesting control mechanism.
      The Minister's proposals for higher education are also fascinating. In the areas of both further and higher education, he seemed to suggest that students who are denied access to a college on the ground of disability will have the right to appeal to the Further Education Funding Council. Why does the Minister object to our idea of a commission if, in the area of education at least, he is proposing the FEFC as a kind of education commission?
      There is a potential for ghettoisation in further education. The Minister said yesterday that we could not spread access too thinly across colleges. However, FE colleges, by their nature, are local and provide services for local people. As Skill observed, it is not acceptable to have to transport people 60 miles to the nearest accessible college. I hope that that problem will be addressed properly in another place.
      The measures that the Minister has announced in relation to the education part of the Bill at least respond to the concerns expressed in the Committee and, to that extent, they are welcome. I hope that, before he sends those measures to another place, he will take into account the sorts of problems about which I have talked this evening and to which we referred at leisure and in more detail in Committee.
      9.18 pm
      Mr. Berry: Nine months is a short time in politics. Nine months ago, no one could have foreseen that today we would be debating the Third Reading of a Government Bill making it unlawful to discriminate against disabled

      919
      persons. After all, nine months ago the Government blocked a measure which enjoyed cross-party support and which would have achieved precisely that aim.
      The Government told us that education and persuasion would work; they told us that they could not possibly legislate in this area. They then said that it was quite incompatible with the thrust of deregulation policy to legislate for civil rights for disabled people. They then said that it would cost £17 billion to outlaw discrimination against disabled persons.
      I have welcomed the fact that the Government have moved ground over that nine-month period. I mean that genuinely, as, I am sure, does everyone else, but it would be welcome if they acknowledged that they were misleading people nine months ago when they said that it would cost £17 billion to legislate to outlaw discrimination. It was pointed out by the all-party group at the time and by every independent observer that that figure, which was repeatedly quoted on and off the record, was a gross distortion of the cost of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am prepared to acknowledge the substantial movement in the Government's position on that issue, but they should acknowledge that they misled people last year and that disabled people's organisations in particular deserve an apology.
      The outcome of the Government's consultation exercise in the summer was that, of those who offered a view on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, 98 per cent. wanted the Bill, which was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for whom I have the greatest respect, and which is currently being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
      There are serious problems with the Government's Bill and they will not go away. The definition of disability is still too narrow. When I came here today, I thought that I would have to argue that the Government should include within their definition those who have a record or history of impairment and those who are regarded as having such an impairment. I immediately acknowledge with gratitude—perhaps gratitude is the wrong word—
      Mr. Neil Gerrard: Just acknowledge.
      Mr. Berry: I acknowledge the fact that the Minister now recognises that those who have a record of impairment should be protected by anti-discrimination legislation, but that still leaves those who are regarded as having such an impairment. In particular, it leaves those with a diagnosed but as yet asymptomatic condition: people with multiple sclerosis, a genetic illness, Alzheimer's disease, or HIV infection. Those people do not have a symptomatic condition that would qualify them for protection under the Bill, but surely they should be protected by it.
      We debated the small firms exemption at some length. Equity demands that if our legislation to outlaw unfair discrimination on the grounds of gender and race does not provide a small firms opt-out, neither should legislation that is designed to protect disabled people.
      The Bill offers us a blank piece of paper on transport. This time last year we were accused of being vague in our transport proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled
      920
      Persons) Bill, which vagueness, we were told, made the Government uncomfortable. We have been asked today to accept from the Minister a blank piece of paper as the Government's clauses relating to transport in the Bill.
      The omission of a commission is the crucial error. The more the Government have taken on board some of the points that we have made in recent years, the greater has become the need for a commission. I have paid my eight quid to the Bow Group to buy Jonathan Kaye's pamphlet. I did not read its summary in The Guardian—I sent off good money for it. Jonathan Kaye was arguing, as a Conservative, that it would be nonsense to claim that the Disability Discrimination Bill can effect true equal opportunities for disabled people if there is not a commission to investigate complaints and to enforce people's rights.
      I urge the Government to take on board a whole range of omissions that we highlighted before Committee, during Committee and again on Report—above all, the fact that without a mechanism to enforce the law, without something akin to a disability rights commission, the Bill will not be effective. If the Government are serious about outlawing discrimination, they must will the means to do so. If they are prepared to make concessions in another place, disabled people will be far happier than they are at present. Disabled people feel that the Government have made a move in the right direction but that they have not moved far enough—much remains to be done.
      9.24 pm
      Mr. Wigley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has played such an important part in bringing this subject to the fore through his Bill and his work with the all-party group.
      A succession of hon. Members have taken up the baton. A parallel Bill is being promoted by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and I wish that many of its provisions were included in this final version. I say that this is the final version but, of course, it is not.
      Nor, I suspect, is this the last time that we shall discuss the Bill, even though this is a Third Reading debate. We shall need a great deal of time in July to debate the Lords amendments, assuming that the new clauses promised by the Minister relating to education, transport and other issues are tabled in another place. We shall need time to apply ourselves to any further amendments when the Bill returns to the House in due course. This is adieu but not farewell, or whatever the appropriate saying is.
      We should put on record the support that we have received from disability organisations and from disabled people themselves, who have campaigned vigorously for many years for progress to be made in the relevant legislation. The legislation that will reach the statute book will not be everything that they want but it is a step in the right direction. The Minister has succeeded in making more progress than appeared possible on Second Reading. Nevertheless, some important provisions still need to be tightened, not least that relating to the commission, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members.
      It is not realistic to expect individual disabled people to go to court and fight on an ad hoc basis to get their rights. There must be a structured approach. If the Government have not seen the light during the passage of the Bill, I hope that this will be one of the first things taken up by an incoming Government after the general election.

      921
      I am still unhappy about a number of the Bill's provisions. I think especially of the problem of small companies. At the end of yesterday's debate on companies employing fewer than 20 people, the Minister said that it would be possible to have a "zero option"—or effectively a zero option—in the regulations. I hope that the Government will be prepared to review the situation not over five years but perhaps over a couple of years to ascertain how the small companies provision is working and will use the flexibility that they have given themselves with the order-making provision to include if not a zero option then an option relating to firms employing even one employee. That will effectively mean that the Bill will apply to every company.
      As the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said, we skipped over Government amendment No. 120, which gives examples of the adjustments that employers should be making for disabled people. It is not clear who will bear the cost of the provisions listed. Will any expenditure come from the public purse or will it land on the employer himself? It is an important matter that should have been dealt with earlier.
      I am also worried about the position of carers. We did not have the opportunity to deal with this topic earlier because of the pressure of time. I am concerned that carers may be subject to discrimination when they are working on behalf of and are involved with disabled people. This could arise in the provision of goods and services—an amendment was tabled in this regard—and in the context of employment.
      The work undertaken by carers is of immense benefit to disabled people. We are trying to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against because of their disability and I should hope that that spirit would extend to people who give their lives to disabled people by being carers.
      The Bill will go through to the other place. We know that many Members in the other place have tremendous experience of many aspects of the work with which we are dealing. We know that the other place passed a civil rights Bill way before we got to this one. We can look forward to the other place positively amending the Bill to make it stronger.
      I hope that, some day, the saga will be written of how the Government started off totally opposed to any anti-discrimination legislation, and of how, with a succession of movements, change took place. I do not want to score political points on that. I say hallelujah to the fact that change has taken place. I hope that change has not finished and that more progress will be made.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Barnes: I remind the House of the position on Second Reading. A reasoned amendment was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. On a three-line Whip, that was carried by 27 votes—
      Mr. Hague: It was defeated.
      Mr. Barnes: I am sorry—it was defeated. The vote for the Government was made up entirely of Conservative Members. The vote that lost was made up of hon. Members from all other parties. When the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill received its Second Reading, it was carried by 175 votes to nil, and it had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Members on
      922
      both sides of the House supported the measure in early-day motions and were among its sponsors. It is clear that the principle of civil rights for disabled persons has clear support in the House when it is presented fully and when it is considered in line with the Government's measure.
      Where does the measure before us, which is leaving now for another place, stand in comparison with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? I have always thought that three areas should be considered. The first is the definition of whom the measure applies to. The second is the measure's scope, including exemptions, to which the definition obviously also applies. The third is the enforcement of the legislation.
      The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill refers to 6.5 million people. There has never been any dispute about that. The Government have promised a further extension of the definition in another place. A "history of impairment" will be added to the definition, but not having a "reputation" for impairment. Many points in schedules considerably restrict and limit the definition.
      The definition needs to apply to the discriminator. We should say that people cannot use the term "disabled" to discriminate anywhere in society. But that is not what the Government want. They want to try to define the people who, on technical grounds, will be considered to be disabled. They want employers and others to have the right to know whom that definition applies to. A massive distinction must be made between the two areas. The Government have never told us what the additional definitions that they have announced today will mean in terms of the 6.5 million figure.
      There is the question of scope and exemption. Some of the exemptions have been removed by the Government or are in the process of being removed. Northern Ireland was exempted initially, but that was changed in Committee. Certain provisions in connection with property were exempted initially; they, too, were altered.
      We have had statements on education and transport. Yesterday's statement is well worth considering in detail. We have already had some examination of it. What does it actually mean? I want the amendments in the other place to fulfil the objective. In interpreting the areas that are liable to be covered, one must be careful about the Minister's words. I am willing to bet that there will be a minimum interpretation of the words that have been given to us about education and transport. As has been pointed out, the employment adjustment is very minor. Perhaps the number 20 would not have been increased in any case, but now it is to be written on the face of the Bill. There are also extra exemptions, on which we have just voted.
      Then there is enforcement, and the question of a disability rights commission. Last night I said that the biggest item on our agenda and the big vote before us would be the decision whether to have a disability rights commission. We lost that division by 13 votes, but such a body would have done more to transform the legislation than anything else. No adjustment that may occur here or in another place will have as great an effect, unless we can get a commission back on the agenda. As I have already argued, a commission would be a dynamic force not only in helping to implement measures but in extending the boundaries of what is covered.
      Other issues covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have not been touched at all by the Bill before us. For instance, there are the provisions covering

      923
      polling stations. Those would have given us the opportunity to discuss civil rights and access to justice. Moreover, within them lies a most important principle: the building block of democracy is the ballot, and the ballot should be as open to disabled people as it is to everyone else.
      Welcome as the changes and advances are, the Government's Bill is by no means good enough. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill should be let out of the cupboard and sent into Committee so that we can investigate it. As the Bill before us is likely to be passed and to become law, the original Bill will need altering because it will be able only to fill the gaps. We want the opportunity to begin to do that.
      The movement supporting civil rights for disabled persons will now require legislation slightly different from the form in which it existed before. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will have to amend, alter and transform the Disability Discrimination Bill when it becomes law—and the sooner the House can get down to that process the better.
      9.36 pm
      Mr. Gerrard: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I welcome the changes that the Government announced yesterday on education and today on history and transport. Obviously we shall have to wait and see exactly what the amendments are like when they appear in another place, and especially how education is to be included, but there has been a significant shift and we welcome that.
      There are still several problem areas, however, and I shall briefly describe one or two of them. The most glaring problem is that of enforcement, which has already been mentioned many times—the absence of a commission independent of the Government, with its own staff, able to set its own agenda and to help people directly by representing them, if necessary, at industrial tribunals and in court.
      We should have learnt from our experience in operating anti-discrimination legislation through the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 what happens when people try to take cases as individuals, as the Bill will require them to do. It is difficult to take discrimination cases to industrial tribunals. Yes, as the Minister said yesterday, tribunals are becoming more familiar with the processes, but discrimination cases are still different from the bulk of cases that they hear.
      Such cases have a low success rate, and in general employers will not admit that they have discriminated; indeed, it is extremely rare for one to do so. One of the key factors behind people who are successful in discrimination cases brought before industrial tribunals these days is their having gone through the process of a formal questionnaire. Clearly, that process is much more likely to be successful with proper advice and assistance. Even if the Minister is not prepared to concede the need for a commission, which I would ideally like to see, I hope that he will look very carefully at the processes that he says that he will put in place to assist people to bring cases.
      There is still a glaring weakness in the Bill in relation to advertisements. We still have the provision that, if a discriminatory job advertisement appears, someone who
      924
      is disabled has to apply for the job, fail to get it and then be prepared to go to an industrial tribunal for action to be taken. That seems quite ludicrous. It ought purely and simply to be illegal for an advertisement which discriminates to be published. I trust that the Minister will look again at that because it is a clear, simple point and it ought to be possible to take it on board.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has already pointed out the logic of the argument that, in widening the scope of the Bill by including education and transport, the Minister is strengthening the case for a commission able to act on behalf of disabled people.
      I welcome the fact that history of a person's health will now be included in the definition for the purposes of the Bill. I understand that the Minister does not want a definition which is too wide and that it must be understandable. He said earlier that vagueness and uncertainty will not do, but that means that one needs to think about the levels of knowledge and understanding among people who are not necessarily expert.
      I particularly want to mention again the plight of people with HIV or AIDS. The Terrence Higgins Trust pointed out that it is hard to define precisely what is symptomatic HIV, but medical knowledge is developing fast. Although lists have been developed for incapacity benefit, they are about conditions which stop people working. This Bill should be about allowing people to continue to work. The definition used for incapacity simply will not do.
      The Bill is wide ranging. Despite improvements, however, gaps still exist. We welcome the changes, but I hope that when we consider the Bill again when it returns with amendments from another place some of those loopholes will have been plugged.
      9.41 pm
      Dr. Godman: I have to be brief. I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill because I chose to be appointed to the Children (Scotland) Bill, which, in some instances, dealt with related matters.
      I want to pick up on three issues. First, the omission of a commission is a grave error and seriously weakens the Bill. Secondly, with reference to observations made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) about the architectural faults to be found in many English magistrates and Crown courts, which present formidable problems for disabled people, may I tell him that the same holds for many of our courts in Scotland, which is deeply regrettable? I look forward to the day when, say, people with learning difficulties are treated, as are children, as vulnerable witnesses in our courts. If this Bill cannot deal with that objective in another place, perhaps the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 may be so amended.
      Thirdly, the Minister said that we should raise our eyes from the details of the Bill. May I urge him and his colleagues to raise their eyes to Scotland, in particular to the passenger ferry services? In a Scottish context, to exclude ferry services from the transport provisions lately introduced to the Bill is an act of folly and insensitivity. People living on our islands catch CalMac ferries as others travel on trains and trams. The CalMac ferry timetable is a remarkable piece of delphic draftsmanship to many of us, but most islanders read it as if it were written by Catherine Cookson.

      925
      CalMac, which has its headquarters just down the road from me in Gourock, has a fairly good record of assisting people with disabilities. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the deeply regrettable omission to which I have referred will be righted in the other place. The islanders who use the ferries on a daily basis, and particularly those who are disabled, deserve better than this. They may he few in number in terms of Scotland's population, but it is disgraceful that their essential travelling needs have been so grievously ignored by the Minister and his officials.
      In conclusion, I urge the Minister to rectify the omission. I know that there would be problems if we were talking about international ferry services and that negotiations would have to take place with the International Labour Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation, among other international organisations. However, the Bill could be appropriately amended to cover our domestic ferry services in Scotland, in the interests of disabled islanders. They deserve no less from the Bill.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Corbett: I thank both Ministers for their patience and courtesy during all stages of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and, indeed, the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and others for their contribution to the latest stages of the Bill.
      I often regard Third Readings of Bills as rather like a great liner coming into port. In this case, I intend to be the noisy little tug at the back pushing it into the berth. I want to read something to the House.
      "We are convinced that persuasion and education alone will not bring about the changes that are needed; an attempt to change behaviour merely by changing attitudes is not a cost-effective option."
      Those words were in a letter from Peter Large 13 years ago to the then Minister for the Disabled when he presented the report and recommendations of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). In many senses, my right hon. Friend is the father, or perhaps the grandfather, of the Bill. He was aided by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who tried so valiantly to promote a Bill last year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who picked up that torch this year.
      I do not know whether Ministers have read the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People. If they have, they have not understood what it argued. Their approach is, "What is the least that we can do?" rather than "What needs to be done?" What needs to be done is to give people with disabilities the rights, status and opportunities that able-bodied citizens have.
      While we welcome the removal of the ability of Ministers to extend the exemption for small firms to firms with more than 20 employees, it is regrettable that there will be no phasing out of that exemption over a number of years.
      We have had last-minute announcements of all these great things that are going to happen in education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr.
      926
      Clarke) said, we need to see them written down. What the Minister said yesterday, as reported in Hansard, and what has been said by the Department of Education today, are just promises. They deliver nothing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) said.
      We will never get rid of discrimination against children with disabilities who need to have their special needs met, on the basis of an extra 10 million quid—if it is a new 10 million quid—when school bids against school and council bids against council. Many schools, colleges and universities have needs and there ought to be a phased programme, as promised by the Government, so that over a number of years the resources will be provided to enable them to meet those needs.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said, perhaps the greatest failing of the Bill is that the Government, in spite of the consensus view across the Chamber, have shied away from the critical element of enforcement—even enforcement of the modest steps in the Bill. The Government say that there should be enforcement on matters of race and gender, but that it is not needed when discrimination against people with different abilities is as rampant and persistent as it is in those two areas. I believe that that is a prize example of discrimination in a Bill which claims to tackle discrimination.
      Yet again disabled people are to be treated as less than equal citizens. People with disabilities and their carers simply will not understand that second-class treatment. That is why they and their representative organisations much prefer and insist upon the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
      All of us in the House have a duty now—we have had it for some time—to ask people with disabilities what they can do. We must provide them with the help to do it and treat them with respect for their different abilities and as equal citizens, rather than jumping to assumptions about what they cannot do. I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough to treat them as equal citizens. The Opposition know and believe that people with disabilities can do so much more than they are now allowed or are enabled to do. A new Labour Government will give them just those opportunities.
      9.50 pm
      Mr. Hague: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the speeches made on Third Reading and try to deal with as many of the points raised as possible in the time remaining.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) responded to my opening speech by welcoming the fact that I announced changes during our proceedings with regard to the Government's intentions on the Bill. He said that it would be churlish not to welcome that, and it would be churlish of me not to welcome his lack of churlishness. Since the hon. Gentleman thanked all of those who have made the progress of the Bill possible, I must pay tribute to him and to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). They have always put their case with clarity, and we have always been able to do business with them.
      I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scoot), who laid so many of the

      927
      foundations necessary to bring forward a measure of this kind. I can only add to the tributes listed by the hon. Member for Monklands, West my own thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has been an indispensable part of the team. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I also thank the noisy bunch of parliamentary private secretaries who sit behind my hon. Friend, and the officials at the Department, without whom none of this would have been possible.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) welcomed the changes which were announced on Report, and asked about some specific points which were skated over earlier in the evening because of the lack of time. He also asked whether the law in this country debars what used to be called a deaf and dumb person from serving as a Member of Parliament. If my hon. Friend would like to inform me of the specific Act of Parliament that debars people who can neither hear nor speak from serving as Members, I would be happy to look into that. I am not aware of that Act.
      My hon. Friend also asked about amendment No. 120—which was carried by the House but was not debated—as did the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). In Committee and during the consultation process, we picked up a number of concerns about the concept of reasonable adjustments. We want the law to be clear and understandable in that regard, and most of the details of reasonable adjustments have been given during the debates.
      There are two particular items which amendment No. 120 brings into the Bill to which I shall draw attention. First, we have recognised the strength of the argument that an existing worker who becomes disabled should not have to apply formally for an existing vacancy that he or she could fulfil with a reasonable adjustment. As a result, we also include in our list the need to consider transfer to an existing vacancy.
      Secondly, we have dealt with leave, by including a reference to absence for rehabilitation assessment or treatment. The Government amendment demonstrates that, once again, we listened to the matter raised in Committee and responded positively.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon also asked about costs and where they would fall in this regard. Access to work provides considerable help to disabled people and to employers in overcoming barriers to work. We are committed to reviewing the programme after its first year of operation, which ends in June. We will look closely at the aims and the targeting of the programme and its funding arrangements. Many adjustments will cost little or nothing. I cannot commit the taxpayer to open-ended funding of reasonable adjustments that employers will be required to undertake because of the new right, but we will look to see how the available resources can be used as effectively as possible to help disabled people to get and keep jobs.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter also asked about the civic rights and duties questions, which were passed over earlier because of the speed of our proceedings. I
      928
      cannot do justice to the subject in the time available, but I will certainly write to him about that. The Government have already given a commitment in the consultation document to seek to increase the representation of disabled people on public bodies. We recognise the important role that the Government have in providing a strong lead.
      On access to courts, I can confirm that the Bill imposes a duty on the legal system to make the services that it provides accessible to disabled people who are making or defending a claim. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has a continuing refurbishment programme, in which buildings are upgraded, as resources and physical constraints allow. That programme includes improved facilities for disabled people, such as ramps, better court lay-outs and infra-red hearing enhancement systems. For example, the Royal Courts of Justice have recently been upgraded and now include stair lifts, which were not previously available.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West said that he hoped that 1995 would be a year of securing the rights of disabled people. There is no question but that, when we look back on 1995 and on the Bill, we will be able to say that this was when we really got to grips with the matter and put in place the mechanisms that will bring to an end what we have come to know as discrimination against disabled people.
      I ask the House to remember, however, that the passage of the Bill, after it has been through another place and we have discussed the amendments made there, will not be the end of the process of stopping discrimination against disabled people. The Government, the National Disability Council and all interested parties will still have much to do to codify the duties, to ensure that the duties that we are placing on people are clear and comprehensible and, above all, to communicate to employers and service providers what their duties are and why Parliament has imposed those duties on them.
      I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that that is a task in which hon. Members of all political persuasions will be able to join. We will always face the task and we must never forget the scale of the challenge. Surveys on public attitudes about discrimination against disabled people show that the overwhelming majority of people are against such discrimination, but they also think that they do not do it and that it is nothing to do with them. Passing this legislation will make an enormous difference, but the task of education, persuasion and communication will continue. People will need a means of redress, which we discussed last night, but the overwhelming majority of employers and service providers will comply with the law straight away, if they know what it is.
      This is a landmark Bill. It sets this country on a clear, workable and unambiguous course to ending discrimination against disabled people. It will make a genuine difference to the opportunities and lives of millions of our fellow citizens and I hope that it will command the support of the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Milk Marketing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
10 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Milk, that stable product to be found on doorsteps and in refrigerators around the nation, is not something which many people would immediately associate with black marketeering and bootlegging. However, the illegal trade in milk is now a growing problem for farmers, the dairy industry and its regulators.
The problem has arisen against a background of imposition on our dairy industry of a system of milk quotas in 1984, decided and enforced by the European Commission, which sought to limit the production of milk within the European Community to reduce over-capacity within the market and alleviate the need for subsidies.
I am on record in this House and elsewhere as having pointed out both the fallacy of the arguments that Britain contributes to the overall surplus of milk within the Community and the unfair way in which quotas were imposed on those same farmers whom we had encouraged for years to invest in new equipment and facilities to increase their output.
United Kingdom quota is below the level of our consumption. We are only 85 per cent. self-sufficient in milk and dairy products compared with Belgium, which is 111 per cent. self-sufficient; Denmark, which is 222 per cent. self-sufficient; the Netherlands, which are 225 per cent. self-sufficient; and Ireland, which is a massive 331 per cent. self-sufficient.
That is now milk under the bridge, as it were, as the United Kingdom dairy industry has come to terms with the quota system and the rather odd constraints that it imposes on British farmers. Surely it is time, however, that the quota system was brought more up to date and quotas were allocated more fairly than they were in 1984, as we are now in the single market, which implies the ability to transfer quota between member states. Will the Minister comment on that suggestion, which was supported at a recent meeting that I had with farmers in my constituency?
Rumours about the black market in milk began to surface in north-west England a few years ago and caused concern not only to the regulatory bodies but to other farmers and their representatives in the National Farmers Union. They have always taken the view that the law in that area should apply equally to all, and that any milk producer who suspects illegal practices should report those suspicions promptly to the appropriate authorities.
Following the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board, the number of reported movements of milk outside the quota system has increased. Higher milk prices have stimulated output of milk, and farmers have looked to lease quota from non-producers to expand their production. As a result, the demand for lease quota has risen dramatically, prices have become prohibitive and the temptation to sell illegally rather than pay super-levy has been seen, in some cases, as the only way out of the present dilemma.
The Intervention Board—the milk quota policeman—has received a significant number of calls on its fraud line reporting mysterious milk tankers arriving on farms at unusual times in the night. Following up many of those calls has revealed no sinister plot but has rather shown that,
930
under the new marketing arrangements, a number of different milk tankers operated by a range of companies are on the road.
Many purchasers of bulk supplies of milk, both for industrial processing, for example in cheese making, and for retailing, both through shops and doorstep deliveries, are buying and collecting milk from neighbouring farms in unorthodox but legitimate vehicles.
I hasten to add that the majority of British farmers and the majority of those in the dairy and food retailing industry are acting responsibly and lawfully. Together, they continue to supply the best and highest-quality milk products in the world.
The Milk Marketing Board, as Milk Marque was known prior to recent changes in the industry's structure, as well as the NFU, have collaborated fully with the Intervention Board to provide whatever information, records or other evidence they can. The Minister will know, however, that there appears to be a small number of producers at the fringe of the industry who supply a part of their production illegally for the retail trade.
I believe that the Intervention Board and the Minister are aware of a number of "milk rings", where a tanker arrives to take milk direct from a farm. It is then sold, sometimes unpasteurised, and often through a chain that is unsupervised by the usual quality and hygiene control mechanisms, to retailers and caterers in other areas. Such farmers are able to increase their income through the sales of such "black" milk while also avoiding the penalties that might otherwise be imposed upon them for exceeding the production limits set by their milk quotas.
Three hundred milk producers recently attended a meeting at Stafford to register their concern and growing anger that little, if any, effective action appears to be being taken to tackle what is now a widely acknowledged problem in the industry. It is particularly affecting the cream of the nation's milk-producing dairy land in south Cheshire and north Staffordshire, from where, it is now believed, milk is being traded on the black market to Birmingham and elsewhere in the west midlands.
In November 1994, the Intervention Board said that it was about to take proceedings, and went so far as to tell Milk Marque that it should not take any action against its members who broke their contracts with it in case that might prejudice the board's chances of successful criminal prosecutions. Four months have now passed, and there is increasing concern among law-abiding Milk Marque and NFU members, and other producers, that no action has been taken to date, and that there is every prospect that little will be done in the future.
If the quota regime is not enforced fairly, the orderly marketing of milk will break down, great strains will be placed upon the industry, and our reputation in Brussels for the enforcement of regulations will be tarnished.
I also invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the situation in other European countries, whose adherence to European regulations and their recognition of the need to enforce them effectively leaves much to be desired. We know that only too well from our recent debates on the fishing industry.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us precisely what action the Intervention Board intends to take, when it intends to take it, and what excuses it has to proffer for the unacceptable delays which law-abiding producers have already been forced to suffer.

931
Let me remind the Minister that it is not just the dairy industry and the Government's reputation for enforcement that are at stake. Public health is also jeopardised by black marketeers, since their equipment and storage conditions cannot be properly monitored. They are operating entirely outside the normal hygiene and environmental health regulations.
The deregulation of the raw milk market, which took place just five months ago, has occurred at the same time as accelerating change in the retail market for liquid milk. As we know, doorstep delivery has sadly declined for many years. That decline has been hastened by continued price wars, including heavy discounting among major supermarkets. The dairy processing industry is going through a period of rationalisation because of over-capacity, and it has sought to blame the new marketing arrangements for milk for its present problems. Not all my farmers, I hasten to add, signed up with Milk Marque, which is itself not a monopoly as the old Milk Marketing Board was. In fact, there are now more than 40 players in the new free milk market, many of which are both customers and competitors of Milk Marque.
Dairy companies are buying about one third of the milk produced in England and Wales direct from farmers or sources other than Milk Marque. Deregulation was bound to bring change in its wake, and further change is to be expected once the GATT round commitments begin to be phased in from July 1995.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom has a natural climatic advantage in milk production, and a strong and innovative food and drink manufacturing industry. To benefit from those, we need to act decisively and immediately on the present black market in milk. The Government need to argue strongly for a more realistic and fairer milk quota allowance, a matter that is long overdue, and to explore options to ease up the quota system to enable quota to move to the most efficient production regions in the European Union, such as the United Kingdom.
I do not wish, and I suspect that other Members do not wish, British farmers and consumers to be placed at a disadvantage, and I urge the Minister to tackle those problems with vigour and immediacy.
10.10 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I first place on record my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on winning the debate this evening and giving us an opportunity to review an important part of our agricultural activity—as she rightly says, at a time of considerable change in the dairy industry.
I am also grateful for the interest that has been shown in the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), and it would be unfair of me to forget that we also have in our midst the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
Mr. Elliot Morley: That is very fair.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman says it is very fair. He may not entirely like one or two things that I might have to say in explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, who rightly drew our attention at the beginning of her remarks to some of the fundamental problems that have led us to the current position. Many of those relate to the history of milk quotas, and she does the House a service in enabling me to place some of those matters on the record.
It is often forgotten that the United Kingdom has never been self-sufficient in milk. Before we joined the European Union, we relied heavily on imports of cheese, butter and other milk products from our friends in the Commonwealth, principally Canada, New Zealand and Australia. After we joined the Community, our ability to produce milk was not encouraged by the then Labour Government, who, in the mid to late 1970s, did not adjust the green pound in a way that would have given the then support price mechanism the ability to encourage our dairy farmers to provide more milk.
Hence the fact that, once the constraint was removed, production leaped by about 10 per cent. between 1980 and 1983. However, when the Community introduced milk quotas to try to control the then rapidly increasing expenditure on intervention in milk products and the quota system came in, the base that was chosen was 1981. Sadly, although production had started to respond to the changes that the then Conservative Government had made, it was too late.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend knows that that base was established, and we had to accept it, in 1984. However, it is 1995 now, and the position has changed dramatically. Much has changed in Europe. We are in the single market. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we should be only 85 per cent. self-sufficient and be disadvantaged and hampered by the base rate that was fixed way back in 1984. What efforts have the Minister or the Government made to change those matters in Brussels, and is it not about time that our farmers received a fair deal?
Mr. Jack: I have responsibility for the north Mercia region of the Ministry, in which my hon. Friend's constituency is located. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to go to a meeting of farmers in her area and announce the ending of milk quotas. The message coming loud and clear from our farmers is that they want to be able to use their efficiency and expertise to produce as much milk as the market allows.
My hon. Friend rightly asked earlier, and now presses me to say from the Dispatch Box, what we are doing. The answer is that my right hon. Friend the Minister is actively pursuing in Europe at present the concept of transferability. It does not seem likely that we shall see an immediate end to milk quotas in Europe, sad though that may be for the United Kingdom. We seek to maximise the opportunities for our farmers, and my right

933
hon. Friend is pursuing the aim of getting quota leased across the boundaries of the single market, which would be to the United Kingdom's advantage.
Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress, if my hon. Friend will be patient a little longer.
We want to make progress, but other countries are not as reform-minded as we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asked how others were doing. She will know that one of the problems has been trying to persuade other people to implement milk quotas properly. That is why countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy, the worst offender, now face about £2.5 billion worth of disallowance because they have not played by the rules and implemented milk quotas properly. We have the most developed market in terms of lease and sale in the Community, and we maximise the opportunity for the United Kingdom.
Wherever we can obtain even just a little extra quota, we have. In 1993, as part of the SLOM 3 settlement, we were able to deal with that matter and increase quotas for other producers by half of 1 per cent—another 70,000 tonnes. In a world where every little helps, we have managed to increase quota. Our continual pressure in Europe has led to a fall in the price of intervention butter. Other intervention prices have been reduced, and we have staved off further reductions in quotas. Equally, our robust stance on milk quotas in Italy has prevented further reductions.
We all understood the sense of injustice felt by our dairy industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister will continue to campaign robustly in Europe to try to assist with transferability of quota across Europe.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is giving the House a frank and honest assessment of the overall position, but I want to tempt him further. It is becoming ever more clear that the efficiency of the United Kingdom's dairy farmers is also being penalised under the present arrangements. The butter fat content—the quality of the milk produced—is likely to trigger the super-levy this year. I am confident that, if the people of this country understood that we are not likely to exceed our quota in terms of volume, but in terms of the quality of milk produced, there would be even greater calls for some reform of the arrangements.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend reflects the frustration felt by some farmers because of the variations in the measurement of the butter fat content that were made towards the end of last year. There were some exceptional circumstances—there was a particularly mild run into the winter, and two different sorts of tests were used by different organisations. We have checked out those matters, and both scientific tests—the Gerber and the Rose Gottleib—are approved and accurate tests. We are considering and monitoring the results of those tests. It will not make a huge difference in terms of the super-levy.
The position relates far more to a surge in production associated with the change in the marketing regime, an increase in the price of milk, and a particularly good period for milk production at the end of the year. Those factors have affected our exceeding the quota more than the
934
question of testing. I will give way to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, and then I would like to make some progress.
Mr. Morley: The dairy industry in this country faces considerable problems because of the lack of application on the part of the Italians. I am not sure whether the Italians lease or sell quota in the same way as we do in the United Kingdom. If they do, the price of quota would reflect whether the Italians were applying the quota restrictions properly—if there is a very low price, clearly they are not applying the restrictions. Has the Ministry examined that situation, because it would indicate what is going on?
Mr. Jack: The fact that, until now, Italy has not implemented quotas properly makes it very difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Clearly, if milk quotas are not implemented properly—that was the subject of disallowance—there cannot be the same types of leased market arrangements that are in place in the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commission is pressing Italy for a clear statement by the end of the month as to what progress it has made.
I turn to the issue at the centre of my hon. Friend's speech: the question of black milk. We must bear it in mind that milk quotas lie at the heart of the matter—if there were no quotas, by definition there could not be production above quota or black milk. It is worth putting that fact on the record.
This year, the temptation to break the rules has been perhaps greater than ever before. The factors to which I referred a moment ago in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale—the rise in price, the change in marketing arrangements and the very good conditions for milk production at the end of last year—were too much of a temptation for some people who saw an opportunity to exploit the situation. For some farmers, conscious of the fact that they were facing the prospect of a big super-levy bill, the temptation to become involved in some of the practices to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Congleton alluded in her remarks was too great.
We took very seriously the reports which came to us about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred to the Intervention Board, which is now responsible for the administration of milk quotas. It set up the so-called fraud freephone to try to encourage an unencumbered stream of good-quality intelligence information, and it received up to 140 calls.
We have carefully examined all that intelligence and other information which farmers have imparted to people in the Ministry. Occasionally, it has been difficult to sift out the hoax or malicious calls, but all the calls that appeared to be genuine have been investigated thoroughly and properly. Those investigations are in the hands of a specialist team which has been created from members of the Intervention Board's anti-fraud unit and the Ministry's investigation branch.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: I should like to give my hon. Friend the benefit of a full reply to her points. If there is time, I will give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) later.
The group of investigators comprises members of the Intervention Board's anti-fraud unit and the Ministry's investigation branch. They are experienced officers, who

935
have a long track record in investigating fraud and collecting the evidence needed to pursue criminal proceedings.
I understand what my hon. Friend said about the frustration felt because nothing appears to be happening. I visited the Intervention Board in order to investigate the matters personally, to meet some of the people who are involved in those exercises and to see whether meticulous investigations were being conducted. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that I was satisfied with the efforts being made.
We must realise that, although there is a lot of rumour and discussion about fraudulent practices, we must work at securing solid, cast-iron evidence in order to bring criminal proceedings. As I said a moment ago, all leads are being followed. Tip-offs are very useful, but occasionally the people who have made allegations on television have been reluctant to come forward and provide information when pressed to do so.
It is a painstaking process to compile that sort of detail and I appeal, via my hon. Friend, to anyone who believes that he or she has information to come forward. We will certainly examine it. I have looked at some of the investigation and can assure my hon. Friend that it is very complex indeed. But complexity is not a barrier to progress, and we are fully aware of the importance of bringing cases to court as soon as possible.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it is very important indeed that, when those prosecutions take place, they must be successful, because I believe that there is an element of deterrent in the success that we hope will come in that area. We do not want to have cases dismissed on the grounds of either technicality or lack of evidence.
The chief executive of the Intervention Board has assured me that good progress is being made on a number of cases. Investigation teams have selected target areas, and I can tell my hon. Friend that reports will be going to lawyers early in April for possible prosecutions to be considered. I hope that she will understand if I cannot at this stage go further about some of the areas on which she touched in her remarks, but I would not wish in any way to prejudice the investigations that have been made.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I have just two small points that I would like to put to my hon. Friend. First and foremost, because of the quota system, it is an absolutely ghastly situation that farmer is having to inform on neighbour. We deplore the black market in milk, but we equally deplore the conditions that have made that situation arise. Secondly, will he accept as a point of principle that it is vital that a successful case is brought, because, unless there is confidence in the system of quotas that we currently have, and orderly marketing, the whole system will break down completely, which is not in the short term to anybody's advantage?
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's remarks correspond entirely with the comments that I have heard from farmers with whom I have had conversations about this subject. A very high proportion—I was about to say the totality—of farmers want to see these rules adhered to. They do not particularly like them, for the commercial reasons that we discussed earlier, but they do not want to see others getting away with breaking them.
936
I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we take these matters very seriously indeed. I have seen for myself the meticulous work that is being undertaken, and there is a clear understanding that good-quality prosecutions must be brought to make the point that it is something that we will not tolerate, but we want to see success when it comes to prosecution.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not nice when people in an industry have, if one likes, to tell other people what is going on, but sometimes peer group pressure can be effective in dissuading people from breaking the rules that she mentioned.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether the Minister could ask his officials to carry out a mini-inquiry into the lease price, and what I call the freehold price, of quota in each of the deficit milk economies that form part of the European Union, because from that price we may learn much about what is happening in each of those markets.
Mr. Jack: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. We have looked at our own market and at some of the more salacious stories that are circulating about all kinds of things, including football clubs buying up quota and rigging markets. I have genuinely found no evidence whatever as far as that is concerned.
As I said to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, in certain European Union countries that do not have a properly implemented quota system, it would be an extremely difficult task to undertake the kind of exercise that the hon. Member for Workington suggests. France has a highly centralised market that is different from ours. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but in terms of providing the answer he wants, in certain cases it would be extremely difficult to do.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we take seriously the fight against black milk. As I have said, real progress is in prospect on the timing of the reports. I shall do my best as things progress to keep her and hon. Friends with an interest in the matter informed, but we must let the investigating bodies get on with their work.
My hon. Friend concluded her remarks with an interesting observation on the nature of what has happened in the marketing of milk. In many of the recent discussions that we have had, people have ignored the fact that, under the old end user pricing system, one effectively had four different uses for milk and four different prices for the same raw material.
Many farmers felt a sense of injustice about that. They realised that, within the dairy industry, there was surplus capacity. We now have an opportunity to see a modern, efficient dairy industry emerge as part of the changes in milk marketing, and to see a proper system of pricing develop for milk. But above all, we want to see greater flexibility in the quota arrangements, transferability in Europe and, ultimately, the removal of the quota.
That would be the great reward for our dairy farmers: the efficient United Kingdom industry could have its head, and we would not be here at half-past 10 in the evening debating over-quota production and black milk. That is something that we do not want to see as part of our agricultural scene.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TREASURY

  Russia (Loans)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the sizes of current and projected International Monetary Fund loans to Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Special drawing rights 719 million was drawn under a first credit tranche stand-by arrangements approved in August 1992. Loans totalling SDR 2,156 billion were made in the form of purchases under the systemic transformation facility in July 1993 and April 1994.

  The IMF board will shortly be considering a request from the Russian Federation for a stand-by arrangement equivalent to SDR 4,313.1 million.

  Schedule D
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the yearly gross taxation revenue, and net tax yield after allowance under schedule D from 714s and SC6Os over the last five years. [16394]

  Sir George Young
  It is impossible to provide details of the tax revenue, gross or net, from 714-holding subcontractors. But deductions made by contractors from payment to subcontractors, on account of tax and national insurance contributions, which are paid over to the Revenue under the SC60 system have been running at about £1 billion per annum over the last five years. Part of this will be repayable to the subcontractors, although the amount is unquantifiable.

  South Thames TEC
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue proposes to petition for the compulsory winding-up of South Thames training and enterprise council. [16298]

  Sir George Young
  The normal rules of Inland Revenue confidentiality preclude provision of information about the affairs of named individuals and entities.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what part is played by the Bank of England in determining monetary policy; and if he will make a statement; [16987]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that public pronouncements by officials of the Bank of England purporting to state or interpret Government policy are submitted to his office for prior approval. [16989]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England is an important source of advice to the Government on monetary policy.514
  The advice the Governor gives at his monthly meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is now open to parliamentary and public scrutiny through publication of the minutes. The bank also publishes its own independent inflation report. However, all monetary policy decisions are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions Her Majesty's Customs and Excise investigated the importation of obscene material in the five years prior to 1993–94; and in how many of these cases prosecutions resulted. [16798]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is not available in that form. Centrally collated statistics for the period prior to 1991–92 do not distinguish between cases detected and cases where, following a detection, a full investigation was undertaken. In many cases when the detection involved only very small quantities of prohibited material a full investigation would not be justified and offence action is confined to the seizure of the offending goods.

  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1993 the following numbers of individuals were prosecuted by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in connection with importation of indecent or obscene material:

  April 1988—March 1989: 105

  April 1989—March 1990: 98

  April 1990—March 1991: 88

  April 1991—March 1992: 52

  April 1992—March 1993: 48

  From 1 April 1991 records have been kept centrally on the numbers of full investigations which have followed from Customs detections and the following information is available. Between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1993 Customs launched full investigations in the following numbers of cases of importation of obscene or indecent material:

  April 1991—March 1992: 106

  April 1992—March 1993: 94

  National Fund
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present value and status of the national fund; and what was the effect of the recent collapse of Barings on the valuation of the fund. [16802]

  Mr. Nelson
  The value of the national fund at 16 March 1995 was £114 million. The trustees of the fund are Baring Brothers and Co Ltd. The valuation of the fund has not been affected by the recent collapse of Barings.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the last White Paper was produced which covered the latest position of the national fund. [16804]

  Mr. Nelson
  The last White Paper which covered the latest position of the national fund was produced in December 1984, giving a statement of the progress of the fund during the years ended 31 March 1982 and 31 March 1983.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fee or other monetary benefit is obtained periodically by the trustees of the national fund. [16806]
  515
  Mr. Nelson
  A management fee is paid annually to the trustees. In the financial year 1992–93 the fee amounted to £118,719.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the trustees of the national fund, following the takeover of Barings by ING Bank of the Netherlands. [16801]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor has no powers to change the trustees of the national fund. The trustees were chosen by the original donor who provided anonymously the gift which established the fund in 1927.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue staff are currently employed in the prevention of tax fraud; and what was the financial benefit of such work in the last financial year for which figures are available. [16824]

  Sir George Young
  It is not possible to identify the number of Inland Revenue staff engaged purely in the prevention of tax fraud. But about 4,500 staff were involved in counter-evasion work—including the investigation of suspected fraud—during the year 1993–94. The total yield from this work was approximately £1.5 billion.

  Smuggled Drugs
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of smuggled drugs seized by Customs officers in Wales in each of the last three years. [16843]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs officers operate within geographically-based Executive units called collections. Wales is covered by two collections: South Wales and Borders; and Liverpool. It is therefore difficult to give accurate statistics for Wales as a whole. However, the street level value of seized drugs for the Welsh locations in these collections for each of the past three years is:

  Year

  1992 £

  1993 £

  1994 £

  Value

  768,261

  15,385,870

  38,926,638

  National Debt
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the value of the national debt for each year since 1965. [16805]

  Mr. Aitken
  The table shows the national debt, in nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP, at the end of each financial year since 1965.

  National Debt

  End March

  £ billion

  Percentage of GDP1

  1965

  30.441

  87.42

  1966

  31.341

  84.31

  1967

  31.986

  81.58

  1968

  34.194

  81.47

  1969

  33.984

  74.66

  1970

  33.079

  66.85

  516

  National Debt

  End March

  £ billion

  Percentage of GDP1

  1971

  33.442

  60.59

  1972

  35.840

  58.29

  1973

  36.885

  52.05

  1974

  40.125

  50.83

  1975

  45.925

  46.65

  1976

  56.572

  47.93

  1977

  67.166

  48.54

  1978

  79.180

  49.49

  1979

  86.885

  46.83

  1980

  95.314

  43.15

  1981

  113.036

  46.23

  1982

  118.390

  44.13

  1983

  127.927

  43.71

  1984

  142.884

  45.36

  1985

  158.029

  46.11

  1986

  171.367

  46.20

  1987

  185.814

  45.85

  1988

  197.430

  43.88

  1989

  197.320

  39.66

  1990

  192.981

  35.68

  1991

  198.703

  35.00

  1992

  214.528

  36.20

  1993

  248.781

  40.11

  1994

  306.897

  46.62

  1GDP adjusted for the abolition of domestic rates, centred on end-March.

  Trusts
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Trustee Investments Act 1961 to relax the proportion of wider to narrower range investments for all trusts in line with the change announced for charities. [17105]

  Mr. Nelson
  I am able to announce that the Government intend to undertake a consultation exercise to establish the views of trustees, and other interested parties, on the proposal to amend the Trustee Investments Act 1961 to increase the proportion of wider to narrower range investments from 50:50 to 75:25 for all trusts. A consultation document has been issued for this purpose.

  Bank of England Deputy Governor
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he intends to consult with members of the official Opposition on the appointment of a replacement deputy governor of the Bank of England; [16302]

  (2) what account is taken of conflicts of interest in appointing a replacement deputy governor to the Bank of England; [16304]

  (3) if the contract for the appointment of a replacement deputy governor of the Bank of England will preclude severance, redundancy, or ex-gratia payments for termination of appointment for loss of earnings during any remaining contract period after the next general election; [16303]

  (4) if he will publish the terms and conditions of the contract in the case of the appointment and employment of the replacement deputy governor of the Bank of England. [16305]
  517
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The appointment and employment of the deputy governor is covered by the Bank of England Act 1946 and the bank's charter. The deputy governor is required to give his exclusive services to the bank. The terms and conditions of employment of the deputy governor are matters for the bank's court of directors who act on the advice of the remuneration committee of non-executive directors. It is not the bank's practice to publish details beyond what is included on remuneration in the bank's annual reports and accounts.

  It is not the practice to consult members of the official Opposition about appointments of deputy governors of the Bank of England.

  Advice Centres
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 240, what factors led him to decide against considering relief on VAT on fuel for advice centres. [16637]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: As a general principle, selective reliefs from VAT, such as that suggested for advice centres, would complicate the operation and administration of the VAT system; create borderlines which would be difficult to define and so become matters of ambiguity and dispute; and cause inequity of treatment. Selective reliefs of this sort are therefore an unwelcome feature of any tax system.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15560]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Inland Revenue's and Customs and Excise's current management plans give the Department's deregulation objectives which are also reflected at all planning levels within each department. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Treasury's latest departmental report—Cm 2817—sets out the department's mission and strategic objectives. These include strengthening the long-term performance of the economy by improving the use of resources and the efficiency of markets. Deregulation is a key ingredient.

  Each Treasury Minister pursues deregulation in the policy areas for which he is responsible. I am the Minister with special responsibility for promoting deregulation across all the Chancellor's Departments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15557]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 27 March 1995, Official Report, column 435, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press officers there are in(a) his Department, excluding the Overseas Development Administration, and (b) the Overseas Development Administration currently; and what the figures were in 1979. [16562]

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are currently nine press officers employed in the FCO news department compared with 11 in 1979.

  The comparable figures for the ODA press office are three and three.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16292]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO diplomatic wing spent £17.6 million in 1993–94 on various forms of publicity about Britain, almost entirely for use overseas. Virtually all this sum was for products and services supplied either by the Central Office of Information or the private sector.

  Only £390,000 was for publicity material intended primarily for distribution in the United Kingdom, of which consular advice and information accounted for £295,000. Contracts with the private sector were for the printing and production of booklets ad leaflets.

  The ODA spent £448,000 in 1993–94 on editorial work, publications and exhibitions. £105,000 of this was for private sector contract for set-up costs and organisation of the mobile exhibition as part of a regional campaign to promote awareness of overseas development issues.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16273]

  Mr. Goodlad
  This Department has not issued guidance in respect of the employment of public relations companies.

  The FCO diplomatic wing's agency—the Wilton Park conference centre—uses the FCO's standard guidance on purchasing and supply and its senior staff have participated in relevant FCO training courses. The aid wing's agency—the National Resource Institute, uses similar guidance from the Overseas Development Administration. The FCO has not provided its public bodies with guidance on tendering.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the exact dates of ministerial visits to Indonesia since 1 January 1990(a) naming the Ministers and (b) the reason for the visit in each case. [16508]
  519
  Mr. Goodlad
  As part of our efforts to promote good bilateral relations with the Governments of south east Asia, Foreign Office Ministers visited Indonesia from 14 to 18 June 1990—Lord Brabazon—28 April to 2 May 1991—Lord Caithness—12 to 15 October 1992—Mr. Goodlad—3 to 5 April 1993—Secretary of State—and 6 to 7 April 1994—Mr. Goodlad.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia about the arrest of three non-Governmental organisations activists from the Alliance of Independent Journalists and one from PIJAR, between 10 March and 17 March in Jakarta; and when he next intends to raise these cases with the Government of Indonesia. [16504]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our embassy staff in Jakarta are following developments in these cases closely. Once we are fully aware of the facts, we will decide, in consultation with EU partners, whether an approach to the Indonesian authorities would be appropriate.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had on the issue of the human rights record of Indonesia, with particular reference to East Timor when he last met Senator Gareth Evans, Foreign Secretary of the Federal Government of Australia. [16416]

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is not our practice to disclose details of such discussions.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the judges for the international tribunal for Rwanda are to be selected; and what United Kingdom involvement there will be at(a) the judicial and (b) any other level. [16602]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary General has invited states to nominate candidates as judges of the trial chambers of the international criminal court for Rwanda. Nominations will be forwarded to the Security Council which will draw up a shortlist of between 12 and 18 candidates. From that list the General Assembly will elect six judges.

  We are currently seeking to identify a candidate for a judge's position. We are also looking for personnel to work within the prosecutor's office.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states have indicated their willingness to accept responsibility for the custody of convicted persons from the Rwanda genocide tribunal. [16600]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The statute of the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda states:Imprisonment shall be served in Rwanda or any of the States on a list of States which have indicated to the Security Council their willingness to accept convicted persons, as designated by the International Tribunal for Rwanda

  States have not yet been called upon to indicate whether they are willing to detain convicted persons.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the UN authorities to prevent the training of Hutu militiamen in or near Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire. [16599]
  520
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is working in partnership with the Government of Zaire to ensure security in the camps. We have contributed £0.5 million towards the costs of the international liaison group established to oversee the agreement. The United Nations has no mandate to take further action within Zaire as the Government of Zaire are responsible for the governance of their own territory.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Governments have made contributions to the trust fund for the international tribunal for Rwanda. [16601]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Contributions to the trust fund for the international tribunal for Rwanda have been pledged or contributed by Switzerland, New Zealand, Chile, Norway, the USA, Israel and Lebanon.

  The United Kingdom has pledged £200,000 towards the cost of seconding British personnel to the tribunal.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price. [16646]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Publication and marketing of the FCO's—including the ODA—1995 departmental report, cover price £16.70, are the responsibility of HMSO.

  Some 2,000 copies of the report were distributed directly by the FCO to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, key contacts within Government and aid organisations overseas, the media and members of staff. The FCO and ODA spent £33,023 on art work for the 1995 report.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms. [16647]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Publication and marketing of the FCO's—including the Overseas Development Administration—Departmental report are the responsibility of HMSO.

  Departmental Reports were published for the first time in 1991. The cost in real terms of art work for the last three years of publication was as follows:

  1993: £17,524

  1994: £26,333

  1995: £33,023

  Figures for previous years are not available.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress the Government of Iraq has made in identifying the fate of Kuwaitis missing since the Gulf war. [16607]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq has submitted its initial findings on a number of the 607 International Committee of the Red Cross case files on the detainees passed to Iraq over two years ago. The response has not been sufficient to enable any of the files to be closed. We have made clear to the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister that the lack of
  521
  progress to date is unacceptable. The United Kingdom will continue to play a role in the tripartite commission and its technical sub-committee set up last December to speed up the review of ICRC case files.

  Stability Pact
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU conference on regional stability held in Paris. [15687]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The stability pact concluding conference which took place in Paris on 20–21 March was attended by all participating States of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Pact's aim has been to help nine prospective members of the EU—Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—resolve problems, especially concerning frontiers and minorities, before enlargement, by promoting good neighbourliness on the basis of OSCE principles. The conference adopted the stability pact and transferred it to the OSCE which is entrusted with its implementation. The EU joint action under the common foreign and security policy has now been successfully completed.

  Mr. Stephen Crouch
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 February what was the nature of the discussions which took place with Mr. Stephen Crouch at the British Embassy in Amman in September 1994. [16722]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No discussions were held at the British embassy, Amman in September 1994 between officials and Mr. Stephen Crouch. A member of the embassy staff encountered Mr. Crouch at a reception in honour of Qatar's national day. No issues of substance were discussed.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 6 March 1995. [17205]

  Mr. David Davis
  The chairman of the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia—established by the Corfu European Council in June 1994—briefed the Council on proposals for a racism-xenophobia observatory and for education support targeted on urban areas.

  On openness and transparency, Danish proposals were remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further work.

  The Commission described the state of play in negotiations with Israel, Morocco and Tunisia, and the presidency briefed the Council on preparations for the forthcoming Euro-Mediteranean conference.

  The Council discussed relations with Russia, and in particular preparations for the visit to Moscow on 9 March by Foreign Ministers of the Troika.

  The Council discussed the situation in former Yugoslavia and agreed a negotiating mandate for a trade and co-operation agreement with Croatia.
  522
  The Commission presented a report on economic reform in Malta.

  On Ukraine, the Council discussed progress in implementing the action plan on energy sector reform which was launched at the G7 summit in Naples in July 1994.

  The presidency reported to the Council on the Troika ministerial visit to the middle east from 7 to 10 February.

  There was a discussion on candidates for the position of executive director of UNICEF.

  A partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and Belarus was signed.

  A Co-operation Council with Lebanon was held, at which it was agreed to open negotiations for a new EU/Lebanon agreement.

  The presidency and the Commission discussed the preparations for the concluding conference to adopt the stability pact, which will take place in Paris on 20 to 21 March.

  There was a further discussion of EDF VIII. No agreement was reached.

  Agreement was reached on the abolition of quotas for ACP light rum and rum from the overseas countries and territories—OCT. A reduction of excise tax was also approved for exports of rum from the French overseas departments to metropolitan France. A quota on ACP traditional rum was set at 58,000 hectolitres, rising by 3,000 hectolitres each year before abolition in the year 2000. A declaration proposing support for Spanish sugar producers was remitted to COREPER for further discussion.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with only Spain voting against, to increase the Community quotas on imports from China, to take account of the Community's enlargement. Some of the quotas were redefined, to exclude products not made in the Community such as work gloves and certain sports footwear. The quotas on toys were further increased as originally proposed by the Commission in July 1994.

  The Council confirmed its support for Signor Renato Ruggiero's candidature for the director-generalship of the World Trade Organisation, and issued a declaration urging others to support him in the current round of consultations in Geneva.

  Sir Leon Brittan introduced a Commission paper on trade and investment. The paper examines how best to liberalise investment flows world-wide. It will be discussed at the April meeting of the Council.

  There was unanimous agreement on a Council statement rejecting the Canadian demand for a 60-day moratorium on the disputed Greenland halibut fishery pending bilateral discussions, and condemning the extension of Canadian enforcement powers on Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels beyond their 200-mile limit.

  The presidency noted agreement on the importance of securing a successful outcome to the forthcoming non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  The presidency noted the Council's agreement that the Political Committee should examine the Council of Europe additional protocol on the cultural rights of minorities.

  The Council agreed a negotiating mandate for a European agreement with Slovenia.
  523
  The Council agreed on the terms of Customs Union with Turkey, together with the resumption of EU financial assistance. An Association Council with Turkey was held, attended by the Turkish Prime Minister.

  The A points listed in Commission document 5342–95 were agreed unanimously, with the exception of number 22 which was withdrawn. A copy of this document is available in the Library of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) of 17 March,Official Report, column 726, relating to legal aid provision, how the merits of the case are assessed; and in what ways and by what process the relevant guidelines can be modified. [16797]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An applicant for civil legal aid must satisfy the board that he has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to the proceedings. It must also be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for legal aid to be granted. This second test permits legal aid to be refused if, for example, the potential financial benefits of litigation seem unlikely to outweigh the probable cost to public funds. The basic merits test is set out in section 15 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, supplemented by the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989. In addition, the Legal Aid Board issues guidance on the merits test which is published in the "Legal Aid Handbook". The guidance is amended by the Legal Aid Board when this seems appropriate.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been paid in legal aid for persons whose cases(a) are being considered and (b) are in the stages prior to being considered by (i) the European Court of Justice and (ii) the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will list the number of (1) cases and (2) people involved. [16809]

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

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the amount of legal aid paid to Mr. Gordon Foxley. [15448]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total amount of legal aid paid to lawyers acting on behalf of Mr. Gordon Foxley was £160,228, including VAT. This amount also includes disbursements and other expenses necessarily incurred by the solicitors acting in this case.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Mr. Gordon Foxley disclosed assets held overseas in his aplication for legal aid. [15449]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Applications for legal aid in criminal proceedings are considered by the court. Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 prevents the disclosure by the court of any information given to it in connection with a legal aid application.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Financial Statistics
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost to the benevolent fund of donations for charitable purposes in(a) England and (b) Great Britain in the last 10 years. [16905]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  1985: £31,554

  1986: £46,088

  1987: £61,063

  1988: £81,122

  1989: £99,805

  1990: £119,124

  1991: £129,653

  1992: £161,318

  1993: £149,436

  1994: £168,293 (subject to audit)

  Payments were made to charitable causes in Lancashire, Greater Manchester or Merseyside or those with Duchy connections in the remainder in England. The figures for Great Britain are the same.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what deductions were made to cover the Duchy"s Palatinate and special costs from the total sums paid to the Duchy of Lancaster in the last four years. [16903]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  1991: £406,882

  1992: £474,933

  1993: £564,367

  1994: £580,322

  The Duchy solicitors costs of administering devolutions were included in the costs of Palatinate administration and historical obligations in the figures in the parliamentary accounts in 1991 and 1992. In 1993 and 1994 they were shown separately and have therefore been added to the costs for those years.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the income to the Duchy of Lancaster from devolutions in the last four years. [16902]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  1991: £938,597

  1992: £1,053,121

  1993: £1,069,028

  1994: £960,295

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the total amounts transferred to the benevolent fund in each of the last four years. [16906]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  1991: £531,715

  1992: £578,188

  1993: £504,661

  1994: £379,973

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost to the benevolent fund of donations for charitable purposes in Lancashire in the last 10 years. [16904]

  Mr. David Hunt
  To calculate figures for the county of Lancashire for the last 10 years would involve disproportionate cost. However, figures for the Counties
  525
  of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside—the Duchy area—are as follows:

  1985: £21,500

  1986: £29,000

  1987: £47,180

  1988: £59,180

  1989: £75,656

  1990: £88,518

  1991: £93,607

  1992: £121,944

  1993: £127,225

  1994: £148,819 (subject to audit)

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the expenditure on behalf of Government Departments and agencies by the Central Office of Information for each year since 1979, in 1994 prices; and whether he will provide a breakdown to show the division between(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) all other advertising and publicity. [16725]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure by the Central Office of Information on behalf of Government Departments and agencies is set out in the following table. An analysis of expenditure in the form requested is not available for years prior to 1984–85.

  COI Expenditure: 1994 Prices

  £000

  Year

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Press advertising

  Other

  Total

  1984–85

  10,353

  702

  21,275

  72,310

  104,640

  1985–86

  11,471

  1,379

  21,005

  69,165

  103,020

  1986–87

  67,141

  4,835

  48,925

  88,322

  209,223

  1987–88

  63,961

  2,208

  46,254

  84,512

  196,935

  1988–89

  46,435

  2,108

  55,277

  88,403

  192,223

  1989–90

  56,533

  3,445

  50,837

  91,984

  202,799

  1990–91

  57,596

  1,839

  42,805

  85,659

  187,899

  1991–92

  44,694

  2,058

  33,741

  82,569

  163,062

  1992–93

  21,199

  1,784

  22,822

  73,945

  119,750

  1993–94

  29,451

  1,986

  27,888

  68,350

  127,675

  All figures exclusive of VAT.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the deterrent effects of reported charges by Government Departments or other public bodies in respect of applications for the release of information under the code of practice on access to Government information. [15991]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The great majority of requests for information under the code of practice have been answered without charge. Charges have been made only where requests have required significant additional work. These arrangements reflect the principle that charges should strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the taxpayer.

  The explanatory leaflet on the code of practice makes clear that charges will not be made without the applicant's being notified in advance and asked if they wish to proceed.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16554]

  Mr. Horam
  There are currently 10 press officers in my Department. This figure does not include press officers within the Central Office of Information.

  My Department did not exist in any comparable format before May 1992 and figures for 1979 are, therefore, not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Astra plc
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those of his officials, including Ministers, who have been in contact with the Ministry of Defence in relation to the attempt by directors to obtain their own copies of documents relating to Astra plc; and if he will list those Ministry of Defence Ministers or officials contacted. [16997]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am not aware of any contact in this respect between Minister and officials in my Department and Ministers and officials in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence"s Department.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has received of former directors of Astra plc being denied access of their own copies of the board minutes of the Astra Group of companies during the course of his inspectors inquiry. [16996]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

  Company Directors" Documents
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of his Department in relation to the availability to directors of companies who are subject to a DTI inspectors investigation of their own personal copies of the board minutes and related documents; and if he will make a statement. [16995]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Inspectors appointed under the Companies Act 1985 are primarily concerned with company records. Where documents are referred to in the questioning by the inspectors of directors or others, the usual practice is for the inspectors to provide copies or allow sight of such documents. The inspectors might ask to see personal papers of directors if, for example, the company's records are incomplete or if they are considered otherwise relevant.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what potential he sees for the use of the order making power as set out in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to reduce the burden on small businesses. [16672]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government recognise that small businesses are particularly vulnerable to
  527
  over-regulation, whether arising from legislative provisions, administrative requirements or enforcement. The deregulation order-making power provides a useful new means of reducing burdens arising form primary legislation.

  A list of potential candidates for the use of the power was included in the publication "Cutting Red Tape", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. We would welcome any suggestions for further ways in which the power could be used to reduce burdens on business—and particularly small business—arising from primary legislation.

  Rugby Radio Station
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many persons who have been employed at Rugby radio station are known to have developed cancer.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This is a matter for the board of British Telecommunications.

  Classified Directory Advertising
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will consider referring "Thomsons Yellow Pages" and the market in directory advertising to the Director General of Fair Trading; [16484]

  (2) what assessments he has made of the competitiveness of the market in directory advertising for small businesses; [16483]

  (3) if he will insist on the introduction of compensation schemes for small businesses whose entries in advertising directories are published inaccurately.[16485]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The market for the supply of classified directory advertising services was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Director General of Fair Trading on 1 March. The MMC is due to report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade by 29 December. It would be inappropriate for me to comment until the MMC has reported its findings. However, the hon. Member should bring any concerns to the attention of the MMC so that they may be taken into account during the inquiry.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the chemical weapons convention has not yet been ratified. [14654]

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ratify the chemical weapons convention. [14649]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Legislation is required before the UK can ratify the chemical weapons convention. This will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and the Government"s other legislative priorities permit.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of regional selective assistance grants made in each assisted area since 1992 in(a) cash terms and (b) constant 1994 prices. [16404]

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the amount of regional selective assistance paid is published in the "Annual Report of the Industrial Development Act 1982". GDP deflators to convert expenditure to constant prices are 528
  published in the public expenditure statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of his Department's research into defence industries diversification and the sums of money spent on diversification research projects in each of the last 10 years and in total. [14639]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken no formal research into defence industries diversification during the last 10 years. It will, however, be participating in a NATO advanced studies institute on defence diversification to be held in Scotland in July this year, to which it is contributing £5,662 in support of costs.

  Post Offices, London
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he or anyone in his Department has had on the future of(a) Crouch End and (b) Wood Green post offices with Post Office Counters Ltd. [16200]

  Mr. Page
  Decisions about the location and organisation of individual post offices are the responsibility of Post Office management, not the Government. Therefore, neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor any member of my Department has had any discussions with Post Office Counters Ltd. on the future of Crouch End and Wood Green post offices.

  Accounts Service Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the costs, in total, to his Department in relation to the contractorisation of the Accounts Service Agency; what is the breakdown of these costs between(a) the annual cost of the CSL Group Holdings Ltd. contract, (b) the annual cost of the contract monitoring unit, (c) the annual cost of the policy work transferred from the ASA to the finance and resource management division, (d) the annual cost of any other department overheads previously borne by the ASA and (e) the cost of the contracting-out process, written off over the contract period in respect of (i) redundancy or early retirement, (ii) solicitors' advice, (iii) consultancy fees and (iv) departmental costs. [15211]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: The process of contracting out the services provided by the Accounts Services Agency has yet to be completed. At this stage therefore many of the associated financial details can only be estimated. Estimates for the various elements are:

  a) the annual cost of the contract with CSL Group Ltd. cannot be determined in advance. It will be a volume contract where the price paid will be determined by the level of services demanded. The schedule of rates cannot be revealed because it is commercially confidential;

  b) and c) the policy work to be transferred from ASA to the finance and resource management division of DTI will be undertaken by the accounts services management unit which will also manage the contract. The annual cost of ASMU, including overheads, will be £307,500 falling to £256,500 after the first year;

  529

  d) as a result of the contracting out of the Department's overhead attributed to accounts services will fall from £99,000 to £45,000 per annum; and

  e) a breakdown of the costs of the contracting-out process could reveal information of a confidential nature, both commercial and personal. The estimated annualised total cost of the items requested is £163,000.

  Defence Export Licences
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the items of surplus Ministry of Defence equipment for which an export licence was granted in the last year for which information is available, giving the total number of items involved and the recipient of the export licences in each case. [15811]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose details about export licences that have been issued. In any event, it would not be possible to identify all such equipment from records.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Hobday to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 21 March 1995:
  I refer to your recent question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning the loss of jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry over the past two years as a result of their being taken over by contractors and subsequently disappearing.
  No jobs have been lost for this reason in the Accounts Services Agency.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question regarding the loss of jobs in agencies over the past two year as a result of contracting out of work.
  In Companies House over the past two years there have been no jobs lost due to the employment of contractors.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about jobs which have been lost in The Insolvency Service in the past two years.
  One post has been lost as a result of work being taken over by a contractor. Forty five posts have been saved through the introduction of a computerised local office information system in The Service's Official Receivers' offices (with a further forty five posts to be saved in 1995–96). Adjustments have been made in the grading of a small number of posts to reflect changing requirements of The Service's work.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply for the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to your question about jobs lost at Agencies in the DTI during the last two years.
  The number of posts in LGC has reduced by 42 since 1 April 1993, of which less than half can be attributed to having been lost due to market tests by customers in Government. During this period, however, LGC has been successful in winning work in other areas.
  530
  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  I would refer to your Parliamentary Question to the President to the Board of Trade concerning the number of jobs in this agency in the past two years which have been taken over by contractors or have disappeared. The only jobs which have been taken over by contractors are those associated with the reprographics unit, this resulted in the loss of 4 jobs. During the period from 1 April 1993 to the present time the reduction in staff numbers, in addition to those lost in the reprographic section has been 126. These staff reductions were found to be necessary to tailor the size of the organisation to match the market demand for our services.

  Letter from Dr. Peter Clapham to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about jobs lost to agencies in DTI in the past two years. This reply concerns my Agency, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL).
  The number of staff in NPL has reduced from 786 on 1 March 1993 to 666 on 1 March 1995. Over the same period the number of casual employees has increased from 18 to 54 and the Laboratory also currently uses 29 agency or other staff whereas the number was about 10 two years ago. Therefore some 65 posts have been lost in the last two years.
  I trust this provides the information you require.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about jobs lost to Agencies in DTI during the last two years.
  No job in this Agency has been taken over by contractors in this period, although the number of posts in NWML has been reduced from 48 on 1 April 1993 to 46 on the same date this year.

  Letter from P.R.S. Harntack to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  I have been asked to reply (with respect to the Patent Office) to a question—number 94—which you recently tabled in The House.
  Overall numbers in the Patent Office declined from 1,073 end of February 1993 to 964 at end February this year, so 109 posts have disappeared. These totals include staff not directly employed by the Office, but provided through clerical and IT manpower agencies. Their numbers increased from 53 to 76, so an additional 23 jobs have been 'contracted out'.
  No other work has been taken over by contractors during this period.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 1995:
  As you know, I have been asked to answer, in relation to the Radiocommunications Agency, your question to the President of the Board of Trade about jobs lost to agencies in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.
  On 31 March 1993, the Agency had a complement of 565 with 524.5 staff in post. The comparable figures on 31 March 1994 were 580 and 534 respectively. At the present time, RA has a complement of 582 and 552.5 staff in post. During the period, following market testing, ships' radio licensing is being contracted out with effect from 1 April 1995 with the loss of 6 Agency posts.
  I should emphasise that the Agency has succeeded in meeting demanding efficiency targets set by Ministers in each of the years in question. The figures reflect strongly growing demand for all the Agency's services and also delegations of management, IT and personnel functions from the Department.
  Within the overall totals, posts have been moved in the Agency in response to changes in patterns of workload and in the interests of efficiency and customer service. For example, the licensing of private mobile radio has been decentralised from the Agency's headquarters to its local offices, which has improved service and been much appreciated by customers.
  I hope this information is helpful to you.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to East Dorset Schools Art to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [16932]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 26 June to Friday 30 June 1995.

  IT Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 283, whether on-site IT training for hon. Members will be provided by (a) employees of the House or (b) outside trainers brought in by hon. Members for non-PDVN training.

  Mr. Waller
  Details of the training have not yet been finalised. It is not expected that hon. Members will need to engage their own training staff, although it will be open to them—as now—to do so, using their office costs allowance.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 50, if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1994 survey of energy efficiency.

  Mr. Ray Powell.
  A copy of the report by the Director of Works entitled "Energy Conservation on the Parliamentary Estate" dated 20 June 1994 is available in the Library.

  Media (Office Space)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) if he will make an assessment of the relationship between office space in the Palace and the direct reporting of parliamentary speeches and answers; [16992]

  (2) if he will estimate the office space available to the media in the Palace in 1975, 1985 and 1995; and what policy considerations underlie this allocation; [16991]

  (3) if he will arrange for the Committee to review the need for office space for the media and recommend whether the amount should be decreased. [16993]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Office space currently available to the media in the Palace of Westminster is estimated to total some 700 sq m. Comparable figures for 1975 and 1985 are unavailable, but I do not believe that the amount of space occupied has changed markedly in recent years. The Committee currently has no plans specifically to review the requirements of the media, but a study is currently being prepared on the utilisation of space on the parliamentary estate to the end of the century. The offices occupied by the media will be included in that study, which will be considered by the Committee in due course.

  Audio-visual Resources
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 284, if he will list the interested parties who are discussing the multi-media presentation of Parliament and British democracy.

  Mr. Waller
  I have been asked to reply. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it would not be appropriate to list the companies involved. I shall write to the hon. Member.

TRANSPORT

  Trespass (Railway Lines)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions have been commenced during each of the past four years in cases of trespass on railway lines. [15757]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Prosecutions commenced

  1991

  1,513

  1992

  788

  1993

  716

  1994

  691

  Rail Users Consultative Committee
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the remit of the rail users' consultative committees in respect of the right to call public inquiries into the proposed withdrawal of any ferry service; and if he will make a statement. [16721]

  Mr. Watts
  The statutory powers of the central rail users consultative committee and the rail users' consultative committees in respect of ferry services are set out in sections 76 to 79 of the Railways Act 1993.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the policy options he has(a) considered and (b) pursued to tackle the problem of uninsured drivers.

  Mr. Norris
  We are considering various options with colleagues in other Government Departments, the insurance industry and the police; these include the suggestion that drivers should be required to display a windscreen insurance disc. The changes we propose to the vehicle registration and licensing system will provide for a more effective regular check on vehicles and their owners. As well as other benefits they will contribute significantly to combating the problem of motor insurance evasion.

  Impact Resistance (Cars)
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action Her Majesty's Government is taking to ensure that the recommendations of the European experimental vehicles committee are included
  533
  in the European Commission's directive on the front and side impact resistance of cars. [16907]

  Mr. Norris
  We have taken every possible action to persuade the Commission to propose, and other European Union member states to support, the quickest practical implementation of the recommendations of the EEVC. To that end, we have carried out extensive research programmes and shared all the results with our European partners.

  Continuous Agency
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects the consultation exercise on continuous licensing to be completed. [16794]

  Mr. Norris
  I will be issuing consultation documents tomorrow, 29 March, outlining changes to the vehicle licensing and registration system. Copies will be placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Bridge Works
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will approve the funding for the bridge works at Southend lane, London SE26, and when he expects the road improvement scheme to commence and finish. [16175]

  Mr. Norris
  A scheme including the reconstruction of the bridge was not successful in Lewisham's transport policies and programme bid for 1995–96. The Government office for London are discussing with Lewisham how the proposals might be modified for consideration in next year's submission. Nothing definite can be said at present about the funding or timing of the scheme.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms; [16610]

  (2) what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price. [16609]

  Mr. Norris
  Departmental reports were first published in 1991. From 1994, the Department of Transport has published its report in conjunction with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator. The cost to the Department of publication by HMSO is as follows:

  1993–94 prices £

  1991

  2,388

  1992

  3,214

  1993

  5,554

  1994

  5,354

  Costs for 1995 have yet to be finalised. Figures do not include costs of circulation and other internal costs, which are not recorded separately.

  There were 2,100 copies of the 1995 transport report—Cm2806, published 7 March—printed. Some 1,300 copies
  534
  were produced for sale by HMSO at a price of £13.20. The remainder were circulated to Parliament and other Government Departments, and internally to staff within the Department, including its agencies.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on theory testing within driving tests with particular reference to motorway driving. [16502]

  Mr. Norris
  Questions on motorway driving can be included in the session at the end of the current driving test, and will also be among the topics covered by the theory test required by the second EC directive on driver licensing. An announcement on our proposals for the new theory test will be made shortly.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of drivers passing their test now take voluntary motorway driving tuition; and if he will make a statement. [16503]

  Mr. Norris
  Information is not held centrally on the percentage of newly qualified drivers who take motorway tuition. However, motorway driving is one of the elements included in the post-test driver training scheme, "Pass Plus". That scheme was introduced on 6 February and already over 500 certificates of completion have been issued.

  Airlines (Overbooking)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he intends to take to discourage airlines from overbooking passengers on flights; [16505]

  (2) if he will discuss with British Airways its practice of overbooking passengers on flights. [16506]

  Mr. Norris
  It is for each airline, including British Airways, to determine its own policy on booking, according to its commercial judgment. A Council regulation provides for compulsory minimum levels of compensation to be paid to passengers with a valid ticket and a confirmed reservation on a scheduled flight departing from a Community airport who are denied boarding because the flight is overbooked.

  Joint Aviation Authority
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for the United Kingdom of adopting joint aviation authority requirements not embodied in present United Kingdom legislation through air navigation orders or other statutory instruments; [16294]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the legal implications of the Civil Aviation Authority's proposals to adopt joint aviation authority regulations. [16293]

  Mr. Norris
  The joint aviation authorities are recognised by both the United Kingdom and the European Union as the appropriate body to harmonise European aviation safety requirements. The Civil Aviation Authority participates fully in the development of all joint aviation requirements and makes a thorough assessment of their implications. The UK will not approve a JAR unless the CAA is satisfied that it would enable the UK to maintain its very high level of aviation safety.

  First Aid
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will consider legislation to require all cars to carry a first aid box; [16868]

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals to require all first-time applicants for driving licences to have a basic knowledge of first aid before being passed for a driving licence. [16867]

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to make compulsory either first aid training for drivers or the carrying of first aid kits in cars. The "Highway Code" contains basic advice on what to do in emergencies and encourages drivers to learn about first aid from voluntary organisations and to carry first aid kits. However, basic training and equipment are of limited use for dealing with injuries in road traffic accidents and the best course of action is to summon skilled medical help as quickly as possible.

WALES

  Family Services Grant Awards
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the grant awards for 1995–96 made under the child and family services grant scheme; what were the figures for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [17149]

  Mr. Richards
  I am pleased to announce that grant offers totalling £2.635 million have been made for 1995–96. This compares with an equivalent figure of £2.1 million in the current financial year. This represents a 25 per cent. increase and reflects the Government's commitment to family life and values. Details of the 84 grant awards have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Senior Management Review
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the senior management review of the Welsh Office will be completed. [17150]

  Mr. Redwood
  The review is now complete. The review report is being made available to Welsh Office staff today and I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to present to Parliament the next report of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales. [17182]

  Mr. Richards
  The 38th report of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales has been presented to Parliament today. The report covers the financial year 1993–94 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the 536
  organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organizations.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The information requested is as follows:
  Beaufort Research Ltd., contracted by Welsh Office 1993–94 Cost: £1,292.50—collection of data for inclusion in 1993 "Digest of Welsh Statistics".
  Research and Marketing Ltd., contracted by Welsh Office 1993–94 Cost: £72,000'—to undertake the 1992 Welsh Social Survey.
  Niace Cymru, contracted by Welsh Office 1993–94 Cost: £5,000—study of adult learning routes in Taff Ely district, Mid Glamorgan.
  ERES/Beaufort Research Ltd., contracted by Welsh Office 1993–94 Cost: £39,921—examined the nature of higher than average levels of economic inactivity in Wales.
  Durdle Davies Business Research, contracted by Welsh Office February 1994 Cost: £5,000—measured public awareness of the 1991 patients charter for Wales and sought views on how the 1994 edition could be improved.
  Development Unit Community Health Councils Wales, contracted by Welsh Office January 1995 Cost: £5,000—measured public impressions of the 1994 patients charter for Wales and sought views on frequency of updating and communicating contents.
  Beaufort Research Ltd., contracted by Welsh Office 1994–95 Cost: £1,292.50—collection of data for inclusion in 1994 "Digest of Welsh Statistics".
  Office of Population Census and Surveys, contracted by Welsh Office 1994–95 Cost: £149,0002—extension of labour force survey to provide data at TEC level on progress of national targets for education and training.
  Beaufort Research Ltd., contracted by Cadw 1993–94 Cost: £11,392 Cadw visitor survey—the third year of a three year project.
  Hall Harrison Cowley, contracted by Cadw 1994–95 Cost: £8,800 Cadw visitor profile research—the purpose of both contracts was to establish more information about the requirements of visitors to Cadw monuments.

  Surveys are also undertaken as part of the Department's value-for-money evaluation of publicity campaigns. The following evaluation studies have been undertaken since 1 April 1993:
  Beaufort Research Ltd., contracted by Central Office of Information 24–26 November 1994 Cost: £6,991—measured the effectiveness of the parents charter booklet in Wales.
  Beaufort Research Ltd., contracted by Central Office of Information 14 February 1994–30 March 1995 Cost: £12,700—measured the effectiveness of Welsh and English language road safety advertising on bus backs in Wales.
  1The total cost of employing Research and Marketing Ltd. was £375,000 but £303,000 was invoiced in the 1992–93 financial year. The Welsh training and enterprise councils made a financial contribution.
  2Welsh training and enterprise councils and the Welsh Development Agency contributed £35,100.

  Motorway Construction
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of motorway have been completely constructed in Wales since 1979; and at what cost. [14869]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Nearly 23 miles of motorway have been completed at a cost of some £220 million.

  Crime Prevention Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on a crime prevention scheme by his Department and the Home Office in the latest year for which figures are available. [15826]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office has no formal policy responsibility for crime prevention, although some expenditure within the strategic development scheme is for crime prevention activity. In 1994–95, this amounted to £817,594.

  There are also some schemes funded by the Welsh Office which include elements of crime prevention, but it is impossible to quantify the amount specific to it. These include grants to combat drug and alcohol misuse, and expenditure on the estates partnership scheme.

  The level of crime prevention expenditure by the Home Office is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a grant to the citizens advice bureaux in Wales in respect of the North Wales regional office at Prestatyn. [15982]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The North Wales regional office at Prestatyn is the area office for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Government funding of the association, provided by the Department of Trade and Industry, was £11,916,000 in 1994–95. The same amount of Government funding will be made available in 1995–96. It is for the association to determine the allocation of funds to individual area offices.

  Railway Lines (Road Bridges)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional finances he proposes to make available to county highway authorities in Wales to meet the cost of upgrading road bridges over railway lines; and if he will make a statement. [15892]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is open to Welsh local authority associations to identify any additional costs falling on Welsh authorities in their annual assessment of need to spend on local authority services. This will be taken into account, together with all other relevant factors, in determining future funding for local authorities.

  Education Grants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total sum per annum being made available through his Department's grants for education support and training to help governors, headteachers and 538
  senior teachers develop effectiveness skills for the management of schools; and what criteria will be used in deciding how such GEST resources are distributed. [15946]

  Mr. Richards
  Planned expenditure in 1995–96 is £1.19 million. Allocations are made by reference to a formula which has been drawn up in consultation with LEAs in Wales.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review procedures he has put in place to ensure that TECs in Wales demonstrate how their activities will mesh with developments plans established by local authorities, as set out under the aims and responsibilities sector of this departmental report, on an agenda for action in Wales, are met. [15989]

  Mr. Richards
  TECs are being asked to discuss with local authorities and others how the action plan "People and Prosperity; an Agenda for Action in Wales" can be taken forward to meet local circumstances. The Welsh Office reviews TEC performance regularly.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms; [16616]

  (2) what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and what price. [16615]

  Mr. Redwood
  The first Welsh Office departmental report was issued in February 1991. That and subsequent reports have been published as Command Papers by HMSO which has borne the printing and publishing costs with the aim of recovering these from the sales revenue.

  The report is produced bilingually in English and Welsh and the Welsh Office has made the following contributions towards the additional costs involved, expressed in 1994–95 prices:

  1991: £7,046

  1992: £5,831

  1993: £5,220

  1994: £4,497

  1995: £3,500

  Some 1,600 copies of the 1995 report, Cm 2815 were printed and published. In addition to those copies required by Parliament, Government Departments and agencies, just over 900 were produced to satisfy other sales at a price of £15.40 net.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16279]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department bought in no public relations services from the private sector. The cost of running my information division in 1993–94 was £616,085, excluding the cost of purchasing media advertising and promotional material.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average delay between the initial request by parents for a statement of special educational needs for their child and its delivery in each of the counties in Wales in the latest available year. [16838]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not collected centrally. The responsibility for the assessment of special educational needs and the preparation of statements rests with local education authorities; regulations made under the Education Act 1993 set out time limits for this process.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to point 7 of his letter of strategic guidance to the Welsh Development Agency dated 23 February, what representations he has had concerning the per diem consultancy fee paid to Mr. Stuart Ruben of KLR and Co. for his term was temporary chief finance officer of the agency; and if he will make a statement. [16911]

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Geriatric Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 906, what procedures exist for further intervention by his medical officer for complaints where additional complaints concerning sub-standard levels of care are made shortly after the completion of the six months probationary period for the implementation of any changes pursuant to an independent professional review. [16852]

  Mr. Redwood
  Additional complaints would be investigated in the normal way. The medical officer for complaints is independent from the Department and would be consulted only if the complaint was not resolved locally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 906, (1) what information he has received from the director of public health medicine of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the implementation of changes in the standard of geriatric care on ward B6 at the University hospital of Wales; and if he will make a statement; [16851]

  (2) what representations the medical officer for complaints in Wales has made to the director of public health medicines of the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the follow-up action required by that authority pursuant to the independent professional review carried out on 6 October 1994 in relation to complaints about ward B6 and the standard of geriatric care at the University hospital of Wales. [16853]

  Mr. Redwood
  In the first instance, it is for the health authority to consider and implement any changes that may be necessary in the light of the findings of the medical officer for complaints. The director of public health medicine will be asked by the Department's chief medical officer, what measures have been undertaken six months after the issue of the MO(C) report.

  Education Spending
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is currently spent on education in each local education authority; and to what extent this has changed in relation to last year's figures in(a) real and (b) percentage terms. [16791]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Net current expenditure on education (excluding school meals and milk)1

  Percentage increase between3 1993–94 and 1994–95

  1994–952 (£ million)

  Real terms Per cent.

  Cash Per cent.

  Clwyd

  169.1

  -1

  1

  Dyfed

  161.9

  -0

  2

  Gwent

  198.8

  -1

  1

  Gwynedd

  100.3

  0

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  253.1

  -1

  1

  Powys

  55.3

  -1

  1

  South Glamorgan

  168.2

  2

  4

  West Glamorgan

  157.7

  -3

  -1

  Total Wales

  1,264.4

  -1

  1

  1 Includes residual expenditure on further and higher education and LEA payments in respect of grant-maintained schools.

  2Budgets.

  3Increase in 1994–95 budgets over 1993–94 revised estimates.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will specify the arrangements by which a part of his annual grant-in-aid to the Cardiff Bay development corporation is allocated for grant-aiding of the Cardiff Bay opera house trust by the corporation; if that part of the grant in aid is ring-fenced; what is the amount passed on to the trust; and in which financial years it occurred; [16908]

  (2) if he will specify the arrangements for the grant aiding of the Cardiff Bay opera house trust by the Cardiff Bay development corporation on a matched basis with grants from Associated British Ports; and if he will make a statement. [16912]

  Mr. Redwood
  The corporation's detailed funding arrangements for the opera house trust is an operational matter. From its annual grant in-aid allocation, the corporation has financed the administration of the trust and the opera house design competition as follows:

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  1994–95 £000s

  1995–96 (Planned) £000s

  Administration

  —

  200

  840

  200

  Design

  Competition

  85

  109

  105

  —

  Total

  85

  309

  946

  200

  541
  In addition, the corporation is planning to match an £80,000 funding contribution from Associated British Ports towards the trust's campaign to secure capital funding from the private sector.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Social Marketing
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and which non-governmental organisations are being funded to carry out social marketing programmes; in which countries they are based; what is the amount of funding granted; and for what length of time. [16086]

  Mr. Baldry
  ODA is currently funding three non-governmental organisations to carry out social marketing programmes. Details of which countries, the level and period of funding are given in the table:

  NGO Social Marketing Programmes Funded By ODA

  NGO

  Country

  Period

  Total commitment (£ million)

  Population services international (PSI)

  Cambodia

  1994–95

  0.150

  PSI

  India

  1995–98

  1.020

  PSI/Society for family health

  Nigeria

  1995–97

  3.300

  Marie Stopes international(MSI)

  India

  1989–95

  0.519

  MSI

  Ethiopia

  1991–95

  0.207

  Total commitment

  5.196

  Family Planning
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on social marketing of contraceptives in family planning programmes overseas. [16098]

  Mr. Baldry
  ODA supports the social marketing of contraceptives as an effective strategy to improve access to contraception and thereby promote "Children by Choice, Not Chance."

  Currency Speculation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the proposal put forward by President Mitterrand at the world summit for social development for an international tax on currency speculation to fund assistance to developing countries for the eradication of poverty. [14928]

  Mr. Baldry
  We support the summit's conclusion that this type of taxation should not be promoted as a way of assisting developing countries. Taxation on international transactions essentially amounts to a barrier to trade which reduces global economic welfare.
  542
  The best way to help poorer countries develop is to allow them to trade freely. That is why my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made clear in her address to the summit that full implementation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade is likely to generate more jobs worldwide than any other single international development.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the United Kingdom's financial or contractual responsibilities for investments made in nuclear power installations by the European bank for reconstruction and development in the event of future accidents. [16846]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom Government would not assume any financial liability in the event of an accident at the Mochovce nuclear power station in the Slovak Republic, the only proposed EBRD investment in nuclear energy. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 21 February at column 129.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions the United Kingdom made in resources or policy creation in the decision of the European bank for reconstruction and Development funding of the Mochovce nuclear plant in Slovakia. [16847]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom know-how fund has financed EBRD's engagement of consultants (i) to provide financial advisory services; (ii) to undertake an environmental impact assessment and (iii) to audit the public participation programme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what calculation was made in assessing the 10 per cent. predicted decommissioning costs for the Mochovce nuclear installation made by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [16845]

  Mr. Baldry
  The cost estimates for Mochovce include an allowance of US$337 million for fuel storage and decommissioning. The Slovak Parliament passed a law in August 1994 whereby 10 per cent. of the revenues derived from the sale of nuclear power are to be transferred to a state fund. This fund is intended to finance all expenses relating to nuclear waste management, final waste and spent fuel disposal and decommissioning of all nuclear plants.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Indonesian public officials trained under the United Kingdom aid programme who have subsequently served in East Timor. [16796]

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the advice and training given to the Indonesian national police under the Overseas Development Agency's police management training project has been used in policing East Timor; and to what extent such advice and training related to crowd control techniques. [16727]
  543
  Mr. Baldry
  The police management training project strengthens the central capacity of the Indonesian national police to respond more effectively to a wide range of management and public service issues. It has not dealt with crowd control techniques. The project has helped the INP to establish a consultancy unit which engages in active problem solving. Advice or assistance from the unit is available to all branches of the INP. The East Timor police authorities have not sought advice directly from the unit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Astra plc
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Departments which have been in contact with Mr. C. Barlow of Coopers and Lybrand or his colleagues in relation to Astra plc documents. [16999]

  The Prime Minister
  Officials of the inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and officers from the Ministry of Defence police CID have been in contact with Mr. C. Barlow of Coopers and Lybrand in relation to Astra plc documents.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Departments which have been contacted by Mr. J. Ramasahoye of S. J. Berwin and Co., solicitors, or his superiors, in relation to Astra plc documents; and if he will list those Government Departments who have contacted Mr. Ramasahoye or S. J. Berwin in relation to Astra plc documents. [16998]

  The Prime Minister
  Officials at the investigations division of the DTI responsible for monitoring the inspection of Astra Holdings plc under the Companies Act 1985, have been in correspondence with S. J. Berwin over the production of copy documents from the inspectors.

  Pepper v. Hart
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report on the implications of the House of Lords ruling on the 1992 Pepper v. Hart case. [16825]

  The Prime Minister
  The report referred to is an internal document containing recommendations from officials to Ministers. In line with the practice of successive Administrations regarding such documents I do not propose to publish it.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 1022, referring to concrete evidence being brought forward and being fully investigated and, pursuant to the Leader of the Houses's oral answers of 16 March, Official Report, column 1033, alluding to reflection on concrete evidence, what assessment he has made of the telex, a copy of which has been sent to him, involving the special action group of the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the agency at 48 Westminster Bridge road involving No Home Runs, Pirates and Senators and the Major Charles McKee. [16910]
  544
  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the relevant authorities to look into this matter. I will reply to the hon. Member's letter shortly.

  Pornography
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister what inter-departmental committees are considering pornography; what are their terms of reference; and if he will make a statement. [16799]

  The Prime Minister
  I share my hon. Friend's concern about pornography, and as part of the on-going monitoring and review of controls in this area the Government have established an inter-departmental working group on obscenity. The group will monitor developments in the area of obscenity, with particular reference to emerging trends in child and computer pornography, and will identify any actual or potential difficulties in enforcement or weakness in the relevant law and consider possible ways of overcoming them.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March 1995. [14934]

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

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what was the figure in 1979. [16563]

  The Prime Minister
  There are currently six press officers in No.10. Detailed records are not available for 1979. The earliest date for which figures are available is 1983 when the number of press officers was five.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, columns 138–39 from which vote the funding for the Metropolitan police committee will be taken. [16691]

  Mr. Maclean
  From 1 April 1995 funding for the Metropolitan police committee will be provided from the metropolitan police fund. The relevant vote is class VII, vote 1, Subhead P1, which is Home Office grant towards expenditure incurred by police authorities, including the receiver for the Metropolitan police district.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if members of the police committee receive payment for their work. [16693]

  Mr. Maclean
  Members will be entitled to claim reimbursement of reasonable travelling costs, plus an allowance of £15 for each hour spent in attendance on committee business.
  545
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister or Ministers will decide whether to act on the advice of the Metropolitan police committee. [16692]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend and other Home Office Ministers.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his responsibilities in relation to extradition relations with Libya. [16909]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom Government do not have extradition arrangements with Libya.

  European Frontiers Convention
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what parliamentary proceedings will occur in respect of the European frontiers convention prior to the Government signifying their agreement to the instrument. [16808]

  Mr. Howard
  As I indicated in standing Committee B on 22 March at column 23 the Government will bring the final text of the external frontiers convention before Parliament before it is signed. If the convention is signed, the Government will not ratify it before the necessary legislation has been enacted by Parliament in accordance with the normal procedures.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding remains available for allocation to safer cities projects; and how much funding has been transferred to the single regeneration budget at the Department of the Environment. [16844]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office transferred to the single regeneration budget £3,760,000 for 1994–95, £6,335,000 for 1995–96 and £6,996,000 for 1996–97 for the continuation of the safer cities programme. The estimated outturn of the Department of Environment safer cities projects for 1994–95 is £2 million. The Home Office retained sufficient funds to provide for the four remaining phase 1 projects until they cease to receive Government funding in September 1995, and three projects being set up in Wales. Home Office provision for 1995–96 is £749,000.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost(a) to his Department and (b) to each police force in England and Wales of investigating miscarriages of justice at the request of his Department in each of the last 10 years. [16945]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information about the staff costs of the section in the Home Office which considers and investigates possible miscarriages of justice is set out in the following table.
  546

  Staff costs £ million

  1990

  0.31

  1991

  0.35

  1992

  0.44

  1993

  0.53

  1994

  0.56

  The Home Office also incurs other miscellaneous costs including those of transcripts obtained and scientific tests carried out at its request, but no firm figures for these costs are available.

  Information about the costs of investigations carried out by police forces is not available in a form which enables miscarriage of justice inquiries to be distinguished from other investigations.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the recipients of closed circuit television challenge funding. [16795]

  Mr. Maclean
  One hundred and six winners sharing £5 million Government funding were announced on 27 March. The successful bids, by region, were as follows:

  North-east:
  Whitley Bay town centre, Gateshead Team Valley industrial estate and Gateshead town centre; Chester le Street town centre; Bishop Auckland town centre; Skippers Lane industrial estate, Cleveland; and Mill Lane primary school and community centre, Stockton.

  North-west and Merseyside:
  Blackpool town centre; Penrith town centre; Tameside town centre and Tameside business development centre; Rochdale town centre; Chester; Wigan town centre; Carlisle town centre; Clitheroe town centre; Neston town centre; Bury town centre; Lancaster town centre; Morecambe town centre; and Kirkby railway station, Merseyside.

  Yorkshire and Humberside:
  Harrogate town centre; Outwood Grange school, Wakefield; Balby Street school, Doncaster Lower Don Valley industrial estate, Sheffield; Scawsby community centre and playfield, Doncaster; Driffield town centre, Humberside; Keighley town centre; Scarborough town centre; Suttonfields industrial estate; York city centre; Boroughbridge town centre, North Yorkshire; and Brigg town centre, Humberside.

  London:
  Harrow town centre, Hillingdon; Sunbury Cross shopping centre and car park; Islington: Hounslow town centre, Erith town centre (Kent); North Walthamsow industrial estates; and Richmond town centre.

  South-east:
  Newhaven town centre; Egham town centre, Surrey; Eastbourne town centre, Sussex; Sandwick town centre, Kent; Rochester industrial business estate; Dartford town centre; Tonbridge and West Mailing town centre; Addlestone town centre; Banbury centre; Wokingham town centre; Basingstoke town centre; Chesham town centre; Fawcett Road shopping area, Portsmouth; Ashford town centre; Dover and Deal business and town centres; Folkestone town and residential areas; Maidstone town centre; Havant town centre; and High Wycombe town centre.

  West Midlands:
  Rugby town centre; Hereford shopping and business areas; Solihull town centre and car parks; Lichfield car parks and town centre; Ledbury high street, Worcestershire; Worcester town centre; Shrewsbury town centre; Tamworth town centre; and Stratford upon Avon town centre.
  547
  Eastern Region:
  Chelmsford town centre; Ely town centre, Cambridgeshire; Peterborough town centre; Stevenage town centre and car parks; Hitchin town centre and Letchworth business centre; Harlow town centre; Thetford, Breckland; and Hadleigh and Sudbury town centres.

  East Midlands:
  Boston town centre, Lincolnshire; Kirton (nr Boston) town centre; Illkeston town centre; Moira town centre; Donington town centre; Loughborough town centre; Mansfield shopping centre; Market Harborough town centre; Gainsborough industrial estates; and Kettering town centre.

  South-west:
  Bodmin town centre; Cirencester market place, car parks and bus station; Falmouth town centre; Newquay tourism areas; Truro town centre; Salisbury town centre; Torquay town centre; West Wiltshire mobile system; Gloucester city centre; Tiverton business park and town centre; Crown Glass centre, Nailsea, Bristol; Boscombe town centre; and Clifton, Bristol car parks and shopping centre.

  Wales:
  Colwyn Bay town centre; Cwmbran town centre; West Glamorgan mobile CCTV; Rhondda residential area; and Haverford West town centre.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16290]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department did not employ any public relations agencies in 1993–94. The publicity budget was used to fund public interest advertising campaigns and a range of support material. These campaigns were listed in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 16 February 1994 at columns 801–3.

  Police Committees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the rate of remuneration for members of police committees. [16257]

  Mr. Maclean
  Councillor and independent members of new police authorities may claim a member allowance of £15 per hour for time spent on police authority business, up to a limit of £120 a day and £3,000 per year—£6,000 per year in the case of the chairman of the authority.

  Magistrate members of new police authorities will, as at present, be able to claim financial loss allowance at the rates payable to them as magistrates. That is:

  £24.72 (£32.96 for the self employed) for up to 4 hours.

  £49.44 (£65.92 for the self employed) for over 4 hours and up to 24 hours.

  Full details of the allowances regime for members of new police authorities are set out in the Home Office circular letter dated 5 August 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police, Hampshire
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police constables the new financial arrangements will allow for in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. [15852]

  Mr. Maclean
  The spending power of Hampshire police authority will increase by £16 million in 1995–96.548
  It is for the chief constable and the police authority to decide on how to allocate available resources between priorities, and to decide to what extent money should be spent on extra constables. The average full cost of a police officer in provincial forces in England and Wales is £42,000.

  Defendants' Property
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirement there is for the police to return property to a defendant where that property is held as possible evidence. [16101]

  Mr. Maclean
  Code of practice B issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that anything lawfully seized by a police officer may be retained only for as long as is necessary in the circumstances. It may be retained, among other purposes, for use as evidence at a trial. Property must not be retained where a photograph or copy of the item would suffice.

  A person seeking return of property seized by the police may make application to a magistrates' court under the Police (Property) Act 1897 for its possession.

  Speeding Fines
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue has been collected for each year since 1990 through fines resulting form(a) speeding offences detected by automatic speed cameras and (b) all other speeding offences. [15662]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  However, information available to me suggests that some £13.3 million was ordered to be paid in fines for speeding offences in England and Wales in 1991, £12.7 million in 1992 and £12.5 million in 1993.

  Veal Calves
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of costs resulting from the policing of protests related to the export of veal calves from the United Kingdom. [15921]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 24 March at column 374.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Green Housekeeping
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide results of the success of the green housekeeping action plan and the other schemes in(a) the Northern Ireland Office and (b) each of the other Government departments in Northern Ireland. [15422]

  Mr. Moss
  All Government Departments in Northern Ireland have adopted the green housekeeping approach and many measures have been implemented successfully.

  Significant success has been achieved in the areas of energy efficiency and recycling.
  549
  Over the first three years of the UK"wide energy efficiency campaign to reduce energy consumption within the public sector by 15 per cent., Northern Ireland achieved an 8.12 per cent. improvement in energy performance £/m2. Work will continue to implement fully the strategy for the public sector campaign.

  Paper recycling has been introduced throughout the entire Northern Ireland civil service, with most offices now having introduced schemes for the recycling of normal "basket" waste paper and a single tender has been awarded for the shredding and pulping of classified material.

  Other recycling schemes include the letting of a contract for the collection and recycling of ink/toner cartridges from personal computers.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the cost of implementing the green housekeeping action plan and similar environmental schemes in(a) the Northern Ireland Office and (b) each of the other Government Departments in Northern Ireland. [15421]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no separate budgets assigned to green housekeeping activities within the Northern Ireland Office and other Government Departments as these, to a large extent, formalise good management practice. Costs are absorbed within existing budgets for buildings repair and maintenance, and the purchase of equipment etc.

  Green housekeeping measures do not always incur a cost since for example, the shredding and pulping of waste paper instead of incineration provides both financial savings and environmental improvements.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a list(a) of the Property owned by the Northern Ireland Office and leased out and (b) of the property leased by the Northern Ireland Office. [15419]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office either leases or owns various properties, most of which are used for official business but there are a number of residential properties.

  The Northern Ireland Office does not lease out any of the property owned by the department.

  Disclosure of the details of the properties is not considered advisable on grounds of personal security.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what is the fully allocated cost for the provision of a continuing care bed for(a) a frail elderly person and (b) an elderly dementia sufferer in (i) an NHS hospital and (ii) a residential bed provided by social services. [15126]

  Mr. Moss
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of goat pox were reported in each year since 1985. [15981]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. There has never been a case of goat pox in Northern Ireland.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 63, regarding water and sewerage charges paid by his Department, if he will define disproportionate cost. [15931]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 18 February 1993,Official Report, columns 313–14 to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which management consultants have been employed by his Department to assist in the assessment of applications by NHS units for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook in each wave. [15847]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 19 July 1994 by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) Official Report, column 194. There has since been a fourth wave of applications for health and social services trust status.

  Two assessments were made by IHSM Consultants in the fourth wave, for which they were paid a total of £12,470.69. This includes fees and expenses.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Events (Ministerial Attendance)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the(a) stage plays, (b) concerts, (c) operas, (d) films and (e) dance performances he has seen since 1 January, together with dates. [16183]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since 1 January 1995, I have seen:

  a) "An Inspector Calls" Aldwych Theatre, London, 16 January 1995

  "The Knocky" Royal Court Theatre, London, 27 February 1995
  "A Christmas Carol" Barbican Theatre, London, 2 March 1995.

  b) none.

  c) "Otello" Royal Opera House, London, 1 February 1995

  "Cunning Little Vixen" Coliseum, London, 13 March 1995

  d) "The Madness of King George" Lumiere Cinema, London, 19 March 1995.

  e) none.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the(a) museums, (b) galleries, (c) theatres, (d) arts centres and (e) public libraries he has visited since 1 January, together with dates.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since 1 January 1995, I have visited:

  a) Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 11 January 1995 and 24 January 1995

  Loughborough Carillon Museum, 4 February 1995

  The Exploratory, Bristol, 6 February 1995

  Quarry Bank Mill Trust Ltd. Museum, Cheshire, 10 March 1995

  Science Museum, London, 16 March 1995 and 21 March 1995

  Royal Observatory, Greenwich, 21 March 1995

  National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, 21 March 1995

  551

  b) Arnolfini Gallery, Bristol, 8 February 1995

  Tate Gallery, London, 21 February 1995

  RSA, London, 23 February 1995

  c) Aldwych Theatre, London, 16 January 1995

  Royal Opera House, London, 1 February 1995 and 22 February 1995

  Theatre Royal, Bristol, 6 February 1995

  West Yorkshire Playhouse, Leeds, 8 February 1995

  Royal National Theatre, London, 20 February 1995 and 21 February 1995

  Royal Court Theatre, London, 27 February 1995

  Barbican Theatre, London, 2 March 1995

  Blackpool Grand Theatre, 10 March 1995

  Coliseum, London, 23 March 1995

  Royal Albert Hall, London, 23 March 1995

  d) Henry Moore Institute, Leeds, 8 February 1995

  Charnwood Arts, Loughborough, 4 February 1995

  e) Belgrave Library, Leicester, 6 March 1995

  Leicester Central Libraries, 6 March 1995

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the arts organisations with whom he has met since 1 January, together with dates. [16181]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I meet representatives of arts organisations very frequently. The specific information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what sum has accrued to Camelot Group plc in respect of its operation of the national lottery, arising from its percentage income agreed under its contract; [15653]

  (2) what has been the initial outlay of Camelot Group plc on the establishment, administration and promotion of the national lottery since the date of the award of the contract; [15652]

  (3) what was the total number of staff employed at the Office of the National Lottery; and what is the total annual cost to the Exchequer of the Office of the National Lottery. [15654]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The administration costs of the Office of the National Lottery are met from the national lottery distribution fund. The net cost to the Exchequer is therefore nil. I have asked the Director-General to write to the hon. Member on the other matters raised, placing copies of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will state Mr. Peter Gummer's term of office and salary as head of the Arts Council lottery committee; and what provision has been made for severence pay in the case of early termination of office. [16252]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mr. Gummer has been reappointed as a member of the Arts Council of England for a three-year period from 1 April 1995. One of his responsibilities as a member of the Council is to chair the Arts Council's national lottery advisory board. No remuneration is attached to membership of the Arts Council or its advisory committees.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will require Messrs Camelot to publish, on a weekly basis, a statement of revenue, distribution, expenses and retained profit. [15862]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Camelot Group plc is subject to the provisions of the Companies Acts and is required to lodge accounts with Companies House annually. I have no 552
  powers to require Camelot to publish information regarding retained profit on any other basis.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the percentage of receipts from the national lottery being held by Camelot plc each week. [16193]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: This is a matter for the director-general of the national lottery. I have therefore asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to whom each of the five lottery distributing bodies are accountable. [16670]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 11 national lottery distributing bodies—including the four national arts councils and the four national sports councils—are accountable to Parliament and will be preparing annual reports and accounts which will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the average period between national lottery competitions held so far and the payment of lottery duty to the Treasury. [15860]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date, there have been 15 national lottery competitions for which payment has been received. The average period between the date of the competition and the payment of lottery duty to the Treasury was 27 days.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will calculate the additional amount of revenue which would have accrued to the Treasury in interest if payments of lottery duty had been made within 10 days of each competition since the inception of the national lottery. [15861]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date, there have been 15 national lottery competitions for which payment has been received. If the lottery duty due on these competitions had been paid 10 days after the date of the competition the additional interest which would have accrued to the Treasury is approximately £200,000.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1992. [16547]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department currently employs seven press officers; the same number was employed in 1992.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16277]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department's public relations requirements are normally met in-house. During 1993–94, a public relations company was contracted to assist with a programme of events marking the 50th anniversary of D-day. The contract, which was in line with central Government guidelines, cost £62,500.
  553
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16211]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Central Government conventions for the use of public relations companies are set out in "A Working Guide For Government Information Officers", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Albert Memorial
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage from what part of his Department's budget the additional funding for the restoration of the Albert Memorial announced on 22 March came. [16669]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My predecessor announced on 30 November 1993 that funding of £2 million a year is planned in 1995–96 and 1996–97. No allocations have yet been made beyond then, but it is my hope that I shall be able to make £2 million available in the two subsequent years.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15026]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  BBC
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the annual analysis of hours and range of output made in different parts of the United Kingdom will include programme expenditure across the range of output; and if he will make statement. [15903]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: The BBC's "Statement of Promises to Audiences" will include quantifiable targets underpinning the undertakings in the new agreement regarding regional programme-making. In addition, we will expect the BBC to provide sufficient information in its annual report to allow Parliament and the public to assess how well the BBC has performed against these targets. We are discussing the details with the BBC.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefits
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) severe disability allowance, (b) income support and (c) incapacity benefit who will be assessed as capable of work he estimates will appeal against this decision in each of the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [16125]
  554
  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested, as estimates are not made for the individual benefits listed. Current planning assumptions are that the number of appeals which will be lodged on the question of incapacity for work will be in the region of 140,000 in 1995–96, 190,000 in 1996–97 and 90,000 in 1997–98.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he will be sending guidance about the assessment of the all-work test for incapacity benefits to(a) adjudication officers and (b) the Benefits Agency medical service. [16124]

  Mr. Hague
  The independent central adjudication service, which has responsibility for adjudication matters, has produced guidance on the application of the all-work test for incapacity benefits. The guidance was delivered to adjudication officers in the week commencing 20 March.

  A programme of detailed and comprehensive training on the all-work test for Benefits Agency medical service doctors has been under way since January. Procedural guidance to supplement this training will be received by all those involved in the application of the test before it comes into force on 13 April.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will move from(a) severe disability allowance, (b) income support and (c) incapacity benefit in each of the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to sign on as available for work.[16122]

  Mr. Hague
  No estimates have been made of the number of people leaving severe disablement allowance. The estimated number of people who will move from incapacity benefit and income support with the disability premium to sign on as unemployed earlier than would otherwise have been the case, as a result of the new medical test, is in the table.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  From incapacity benefit to unemployment

  160,000

  120,000

  60,000

  From income support with disability premium to unemployment

  50,000

  30,000

  10,000

  Note:

  Estimates rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will fail to qualify for(a) severe disablement allowance, (b) income support and (c) incapacity benefit in each of the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 as a result of being assessed as capable of all work. [16118]

  Mr. Hague
  No estimates have been made of the number of severe disablement allowance claimants being found capable of all work. The estimated numbers of new and existing claimants of income support and incapacity benefit who will be found capable of work are in the tables.
  555

  New claimants found capable of work under the new medical test (Table shows the estimated number of people leaving benefit earlier than they would have done under current arrangements)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total over 3 years

  Incapcity benefit1

  45,000

  55,000

  55,000

  160,000

  Income support with disability premium2

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  35,000

  Total—invalidity benefit and income support2

  55,000

  70,000

  70,000

  195,000

  Existing claimants found capable of work under the new medical test (Table shows the estimated number of people leaving benefit earlier than they would have done under current arrangements)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total over 3 years

  Invalidity benefit

  140,000

  80,000

  20,000

  240,000

  Income support with disability premium2

  50,000

  30,000

  5,000

  85,000

  Total—invalidity benefit and income support2

  190,000

  110,000

  25,000

  325,000

  Notes:

  1Figures for incapacity benefit relate to those who would have qualified for invalidity benefit under the current arrangements.

  2Figures for income support do not include those also receiving invalidity benefit/incapacity benefit.

  1. All estimates rounded to the nearest 5,000; totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) severe disability allowance, (b) income support and (c) incapacity benefit he estimates will be examined by the Benefits Agency Medical Service in each of the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [16126]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested, as estimates are not made for the individual benefits listed. Current planning assumptions are that the number of medical examinations relating to incapacity for work will be in the region of 625,000 in 1995–96, 660,000 in 1996–97 and 375,000 in 1997–98.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who will move off incapacity benefits during 1996–97 he estimates will fail to qualify for contributory jobseeker's allowance. [16120]

  Mr. Hague
  Around 70,000.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will qualify for(a) severe disability allowance, (b) income support and (c) incapacity benefit in each of the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 because they fall within one of the groups exempt from the all-work test. [16123]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates have not been made of the number of severe disablement allowance and income support claimants who will be exempt from the all-work test. It is estimated that around 50,000 new incapacity benefit claimants per year will be exempt from the test and that around 900,000 existing invalidity benefit claimants will be exempt.
  556
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will qualify for unemployment benefit or jobseeker's allowance he expects will need to claim an incapacity benefit on the basis that they are unable to work, in each of the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [16119]

  Mr. Hague
  It is not possible to make the estimate specified in the question, as data are not held on benefits received by claimants at the point of a claim for an incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who will move off incapacity benefits during 1995–96 he estimates will qualify for unemployment benefit. [16121]

  Mr. Hague
  Around 95,000.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out full details of the procedures to be used under the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 by the Benefits Agency medical service agency in the assessment of severe mental health problems, and the criteria by which the Benefits Agency medical service doctors will assess each individual to decide who is, and who is not, to be exempt by reason of mental illness from the all-work test. [17011]

  Mr. Hague
  Before the all-work test is applied to any claimant with a diagnosis of mental health problems, a Benefits Agency medical services doctor will consider whether the claimant's mental health problem is a severe one. This consideration will be based on medical evidence already held and on further information from the Claimant's GP or other medical practitioner, which may be sought specifically to inform the decision. Where a claimant is certified by the Benefits Agency medical service doctor as suffering from severe mental illness, he will be found incapable for work automatically, without having to undergo the test.

  The guidance for Benefits Agency medical service doctors in assessing severe mental health problems is as follows:
  Severe mental health problems are characterised by the presence of mental illness so adversely affecting a person's mood, behaviour or social or environmental awareness, including interpersonal relationships, that continued psychiatric care is essential. This care could include:
  sheltered residential facilities where the person receives regular medical or nursing supervision; or
  day care at least one day a week in a centre where qualified nursing care is available; and/or
  long-term medication with anti-psychotic preparations including depot neuroleptics or mood-modifying drugs.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for family credit have been made in the period 1 April 1994 to 30 September 1994; [15947]

  (2) how many claims for family credit and child care disregard there were for (a) one-parent and (b) two-parent families in the period 1 April 1994 to 30 September 1994;

  (3) how many claims for family credit had a request for child care costs to be disregarded in the period 1 April 1994 to 30 September 1994. [15948]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In the six-month period from 1 April to 30 September 1994, there were a total of 677,000 claims for family credit.
  557
  Child care charges were not a relevant factor in the determination of family credit entitlement until October 1994. Consequently, the family credit claim form did not ask for details of child care charges before that date. No information is available about any family credit claimant who may, nevertheless, have made a request for child care charges to be taken into consideration.

  Ilford Park Polish Home
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received from the residents in the Ilford Park Polish home near Newton Abbot, Devon, about the market-testing exercise being mounted by his Department in relation to the home; [16172]

  (2) when he expects to reach a decision about the operation of the Ilford Park Polish home and the market-testing exercise currently in operation there. [16161]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have received a number of written representations from the residents of Ilford Park Polish home. In addition, on 20 December 1994, my noble Friend the Minister of State also met with the residents' committee on his visit to the home.

  The information necessary for us to make a decision on the award of the market-testing contract is to be presented by the end of September 1995.

  Unemployment Benefit (Local Councillors)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider the regulations which prevent serving local councillors from receiving unemployment benefit by virtue of being regarded as unavailable for work; and if he will make a statement. [15945]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Availability for work is a long-standing and basic condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit. There are no plans to remove this condition in respect of local authority councilors.

  Social Fund
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what gross budget will be set for the discretionary social fund in 1995–96. [17184]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The social fund gross discretionary budget for 1995–96 will be £406 million. Some £97 million will be allocated to grants and £309 million to loans. The new allocations represent an increase of £38 million over the total gross budget for 1994–95.

  At a time when we need to look very carefully at every aspect of public expenditure, I am pleased that we are once again able to sustain our record in increasing the social fund budget each year since it began.

  The recycling of loans means that we are able to give more help to more people. The loans system is being widely used; between 1 April 1994 and 28 February 1995 well over 1.8 million non-repayable grants and interest-free loans were made. This is 100,000 more than during the same period last year—an increase of 6 per cent. The increase from April 1995 will allow even more people to be helped.

  Details of individual district budget allocations have been placed in the Library.
  558
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of applications for budgeting loans, (b) the number of applications for crisis loans, (c) the number of successful applications for budgeting loans and the percentage success rate expressed against the total number of applications, (d) the number of successful applications for crisis loans and the percentage success rate expressed against the total number of applications, (e) the total budget allowed for (i) budgeting and (ii) crisis loans and (f) the total amounts awarded for (iii) budgeting and (iv) crisis loans for each Benefits Agency district within Scotland for each of the financial years since their introduction. [16306]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, dated 27 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Social Fund in Scotland.
  The information you have requested is at Annex A and a copy has been placed in the Library. There is no separate budgeting and crisis loans budget, but each district has an overall loans budget. Information has therefore been provided for the total loans allocations for each district.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow employers to opt out of the statutory sick pay scheme and what progress has been made towards simplifying the rules. [17205]

  Mr. Lilley
  I am issuing a consultation paper today which seeks views on allowing employers to opt out of the statutory sick pay scheme where their occupational sick pay schemes meet certain requirements. It would be in everyone's interest for sick pay arrangements to operate as simply and smoothly as possible.

  Research carried out for the Department of Social Security in recent years shows that around 85 per cent. of employers make some form of short-term provision for sickness.

  One of the main advantages for employers in opting out of SSP would be a reduction in the amount of records they are required to keep at present. They would no longer have to operate SSP rules and could keep simpler records of sickness absence, payments made to employees and transfers to state incapacity benefits.

  Record keeping can be an administrative burden for every employer, not just for those with occupational sick pay schemes, so I am also seeking views on a significant reduction in the amount of mandatory records to be kept by all employers.

  The proposals have been made by a working group of employers and payroll organisations which I set up to examine ways for cutting red tape in the SSP scheme.

  The group has also identified a number of changes that would make the scheme simpler to understand and operate. It is now important to seek wider views including those of employee's representatives.

  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the group for the time they have given and

  559
  the commitment they have shown in undertaking such a thorough review.

  Copies of the consultation paper with the working group"s report have been placed in the Library. Comments are sought by 30 June.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State of Social Security if he will list for each of the past five years,(a) how many people claimed housing benefit, (b) how much was paid in housing benefit, (c) how many claimants have had their housing benefit reduced due to the presence of a non-dependent adult in the household,(d) by how much the total housing benefit bill has been reduced due to the provisions on non-dependent lodgers, (e) by how much the housing benefit bill would be reduced if all single householders with spare bedrooms were assumed to be providing lodgings to a second non-dependent adult. [14926]

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

  Thousands

  All housing benefit recipients

  Estimate of number of housing benefit cases with a non-dependant in the household

  May 1989

  3,926

  n/a

  May 1990

  3,979

  323

  May 1991

  4,021

  333

  May 1992

  4,320

  297

  May 1993

  4,521

  311

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken at the end of May each year.

  Total housing benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1989–90

  4,299

  1990–91

  5,100

  1991–92

  6,375

  1992–93

  7,793

  1993–94

  9,193

  Source:

  Departmental report 1995.

  The amount by which the housing benefit bill is reduced due to the provisions on income from lodgers, part (d), cannot be calculated because information is not collected centrally.

  Information on the size of accommodation, part (e), is not collected centrally.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what actions he has taken in the last three years to encourage eligible persons to claim a war pension. [15917]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  560
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 27 March 1995:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about actions taken in the last three years to encourage eligible persons to claim a war pension.
  The Agency, previously the War Pensions Directorate under the Benefits Agency, has actively publicised War Pensions through our own Welfare Service which has 29 offices located throughout the country; the War Pensions Committees which are also regionally based; the various ex-Service organisations with whom we have close and frequent dialogue, and with the Press.
  Claims have risen in the last 10 years from 15,000 to an expected 120,000 for this year, and it is our aim to continue to raise awareness of the War Pensions Agency, the War Pensions Scheme and the service we provide, so that those with potential entitlement know of their right to claim.
  Activities over the last 3 years include:
  attending many exhibitions and, through our Welfare Service, providing seminars and advice days throughout the country which are advertised through the appropriate local press;
  ensuring that welfare outlets and organisations (doctors hospitals etc) and advice centres (NACAB, Age Concern etc) know of our service, and to target places our potential customers are likely to visit;
  poster campaigns ( a new one has just started);
  providing information and factual articles for newspapers, magazines, television and radio programmes. We ensure wherever possible that the War Pensions Agency Helpline telephone number (01253 858858) is quoted which is proving successful, with calls to the Helpline now averaging over 9,500 per week;
  British Telecom telephone directories now prominently mention War Pensions Agency in the form of a ½ column entry;
  following successful trials last year of a mobile office, we will continue this service;
  establishing contact with new areas such as ex-service magazines and Regimental museums to discuss WPA publicity material and areas of common interest such as VE/VJ day;
  providing information for servicemen on discharge for inclusion in a Benefits Agency pack;
  the Agency will shortly be appearing on Charter Television which is aimed at hospital waiting areas.
  I hope you find my reply useful.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the numbers of people requesting the DS2 claim pack for attendance allowance but failing to return it. [16072]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about claims for Attendance Allowance (AA).
  The claim pack DS2 is exclusively for use in AA claims. In the period April 1992 to January 1995 some 2,300,000 DS2 claim packs have been issued to Benefits Agency outlets. Though the vast majority of these have gone to customers, information is not available in respect of the number still held in stock.
  Additionally, DS2A packs are issued to organisations such as Welfare Rights and Citizen's Advice Bureaux. Although 1,500,000 DS2A packs have been issued in the period April 1992 to January 1995 information is not available in respect of the number still held in stock.

  561
  DS2 packs, supplied to customers direct from BA offices, provide an opportunity for a customer to complete and return their claim within a 6 week period whilst maintaining their original date of claim.
  The total number of AA claims received for the period April 1992 to January 1995 is 1,400,000.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

HEALTH

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the percentage of doctors still working in the NHS in each of the first 10 years after qualifying; and what were the figures for each of the last 10 years. [15770]

  Mr. Malone
  Data are not available in the form requested.

  Evidence on doctors leaving the profession prematurely is based in studies published in 1991 by Professor James Parkhouse. These studies suggest that about 20 per cent. of doctors are not practising in the national health service five years after qualification. The majority of these however, are not lost permanently to medicine. Many are working in short-term postings overseas, to develop their skills further, while others are working in United Kingdom medical work outside the NHS, or taking short career breaks. The Department has commissioned further cohort studies to provide up to date estimates of wastage from the medical profession.

  A recent study by Isobel Allen containing more up-to-date information, based on a sample of 200 doctors qualifying in 1986, found that very few young doctors had left medicine altogether six years after qualification.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities in each regional health authority area have a policy on mixed-sex wards; and how many do not. [16100]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish health service clinical outcome indicators similar to those published in December 1994 by the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of individual(a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts in England; and what timetable is envisaged. [15866]

  Mr. Sackville
  Many of the indicators published in Scotland were published for individual health authorities in England in 1993. Existing indicators will henceforth be published annually as part of the public health common data set. Some of the indicators published in Scotland are dependent on linking patient records and this is not yet possible in England. As part of our longer-term plans we are currently working with the clinical professions on a programme to develop new outcome indicators.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make an urgent response to the consultations concluded on 30 November 1994 on the Green Paper, "Improving NHS Dentistry". [15983]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government are considering carefully all the contributions received during the consultation. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 400, how many letters from the public mentioned concern with problems of gaining access to NHS dental services en passant; and how many letters from (a) hon. Members, (b) community health councils, (c) local authorities, (d) professional organisations and (e) patient groups have been received. [16400]

  Mr. Malone
  Since January 1994 some 209 letters in which the main point has been availability of general dental services have been received from hon. and right hon. Members. Additionally, two letters have been received direct from patient groups and one letter direct from a professional group.

  Family health services authorities consistently report that they can help patients to find national health service dentists.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health services authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in each month since April 1991. [16402]

  Mr. Malone
  General dental practitioners have an obligation under their terms of service to provide emergency cover to their registered patients. They may also offer emergency treatment to non-registered patients. Family health services authorities can make arrangements for emergency treatment for those patients who are not registered and are able to assist all those who inquire about emergency treatment.

  Where there are already adequate emergency services available from general dental practitioners, or the community or hospital dental services, there is no need for FHSAs themselves to make arrangements.

  Information on provision of emergency dental services by family health services authorities is available only for the period from July 1992 to July 1994. Data were received on a weekly rather than a monthly basis and are shown weekly in the table. Since 1 August 1994 more detailed data have been collected weekly on the number of patients referred to the emergency dental service, the community dental service, hospital dental service and salaried dentists instead.

  General dental service: Total number of family health services authorities reporting that they were not providing emergency dental services in each week from 3 July 1992 to 29 July 19941 3

  Week ending

  FHSAs

  England

  3 July 1992

  13

  10 July 1992

  7

  17 July 1992

  8

  24 July 1992

  7

  31 July 1992

  8

  7 August 1992

  8

  14 August 1992

  7

  21 August 1992

  7

  28 August 1992

  8

  563

  General dental service: Total number of family health services authorities reporting that they were not providing emergency dental services in each week from 3 July 1992 to 29 July 19941 3

  Week ending

  FHSAs

  4 September 1992

  8

  11 September 1992

  8

  18 September 1992

  8

  25 September 1992

  8

  2 October 1992

  8

  9 October 1992

  8

  16 October 1992

  8

  23 October 1992

  8

  30 October 1992

  8

  6 November 1992

  8

  13 November 1992

  7

  20 November 1992

  7

  27 November 1992

  7

  4 December 1992

  6

  11 December 1992

  6

  18 December 1992

  6

  25 December 1992

  —

  1 January 1993

  —

  8 January 1993

  6

  15 January 1993

  6

  22 January 1993

  6

  29 January 1993

  6

  5 February 1993

  6

  12 February 1993

  6

  19 February 1993

  6

  26 February 1993

  4

  5 March 1993

  7

  12 March 1993

  5

  19 March 1993

  5

  26 March 1993

  6

  2 April 1993

  6

  9 April 1993

  5

  16 April 1993

  5

  23 April 1993

  7

  30 April 1993

  5

  7 May 1993

  6

  14 May 1993

  6

  21 May 1993

  5

  28 May 1993

  6

  4 June 1993

  7

  11 June 1993

  6

  18 June 1993

  5

  25 June 1993

  5

  2 July 1993

  6

  9 July 1993

  5

  16 July 1993

  5

  23 July 1993

  5

  30 July 1993

  6

  6 August 1993

  5

  13 August 1993

  6

  20 August 1993

  6

  27 August 1993

  6

  3 September 1993

  5

  10 September 1993

  5

  17 September 1993

  5

  24 September 1993

  5

  1 October 1993

  5

  08 October 1993

  5

  15 October 1993

  5

  22 October 1993

  8

  29 October 1993

  7

  5 November 1993

  8

  12 November 1993

  6

  19 November 1993

  5

  26 November 1993

  6

  3 December 1993

  6

  10 December 1993

  6

  17 December 1993

  5

  24 December 1993

  —

  31 December 1993

  —

  7 January 1994

  6

  564

  General dental service: Total number of family health services authorities reporting that they were not providing emergency dental services in each week from 3 July 1992 to 29 July 19941 3

  Week ending

  FHSAs

  14 January 1994

  6

  21 January 1994

  7

  28 January 1994

  5

  4 February 1994

  6

  11 February 1994

  6

  28 February 1994

  5

  25 February 1994

  7

  4 March 1994

  6

  11 March 1994

  5

  18 March 1994

  5

  25 March 1994

  5

  1 April 1994

  6

  8 April 1994

  2—

  15 April 1994

  8

  22 April 1994

  8

  29 April 1994

  6

  6 May 1994

  5

  13 May 1994

  5

  20 May 1994

  5

  27 May 1994

  5

  3 June 1994

  7

  10 June 1994

  4

  17 June 1994

  4

  24 June 1994

  4

  1 July 1994

  4

  8 July 1994

  4

  15 July 1994

  4

  22 July 1994

  4

  29 July 1994

  6

  Notes:

  1 Data was not collected during the Christmas and new year periods.

  2 Data received for the week ending 8 April 1994 are not compatible to the other data.

  3 From the 1 August 1994 the data is not available.

  Source:

  Department of Health.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts regularly employ general practitioners to work in accident and emergency units; and what has been the effect on waiting times. [16099]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 498, if she will advise ambulance NHS trusts that they should not charge paramedics for their training. [16271]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for individual ambulance trusts.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on plans to privatise the NHS Pensions Agency; and how pensioners will be protected. [16205]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to privatise the national health service pensions scheme. A "prior options" review of the NHS Pensions Agency is currently under way which examines in the usual way the future of
  565
  all of the agency's various functions of administering the NHS pensions and injury benefit schemes. We shall announce our conclusions on the agency's future in due course.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding general practitioners and their out-of-hours work commitment. [16425]

  Mr. Malone
  We are continuing to have regular discussions with representatives of the medical profession.

  Hospital Security
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to improve hospital security. [15643]

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospital security is a matter for local management. The Government place great importance on the creation of a safe and secure environment in hospitals as part of quality health care. Guidance has been made available to hospitals by the National Health Service Executive.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters have been received from(a) the public and (b) hon. Members in each of the last five years concerning (i) London"s health service, (ii) hospital closures, (iii) long-term care of the elderly, (iv) mental health services, (v) increasing bureaucracy and (vi) in total on all NHS matters either exclusively or en passant. [16401]

  Mr. Sackville
  Detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total number of letters replied to by the Department of Health in the last five years is as shown in the table:

  Letter replied to

  Year

  1By ministers

  2By officials

  1990

  28,100

  334,000

  1991

  18,001

  30,132

  1992

  19,704

  48,543

  1993

  25,559

  58,598

  1994

  22,341

  44,518

  1 Letters received mainly from hon. and right hon. Members.

  2 Letters received mainly from the public.

  3 Estimated.

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by her Department or its predecessors since 1965. [16097]

  Mr. Sackville
  An analysis of all legislation introduced by this Department and its predecessors since 1965, for any references of the type requested, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would be extremely unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member. Frequent references are made to officers of state and occasional general references are 566
  made to persons who are Members of one or other of the Houses of Parliament.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 March,Official Report, columns 702–3, if she will list (a) the location and (b) the specific clinical or clinical support service for which there are 20 local plans to market test. [16403]

  Mr. Sackville
  The notified list of local plans to market test clinical support services with other national health service or independent provider units will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will define the role of hospital doctors before and after the reforms. [16405]

  Mr. Malone
  There has never been any precise definition of the role of hospital doctors. However, they have always been and continue to be responsible for providing high quality patient care.

  Drug Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average spending on drugs by(a) fundholders and (b) non-fundholders in the latest available quarter. [16406]

  Mr. Malone
  The average net ingredient cost expenditure on drugs prescribed during the quarter October to December 1994 was £18 per patient by fundholders and £19 per patient by non-fundholders.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have temporarily closed(a) their accident and emergency department and (b) any other acute services for any length of time in each of the past 24 months; and if she will list the hospitals, and give details of the length of closure and causes. [16638]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) on 7 March at column 101.

  Hospitalised Boxer (Security Costs)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of security guards for the American boxer Gerald McClellan in the Royal London hospital; and on whom this cost falls.[16639]

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts are free to take measures that they deem necessary to protect the safety or privacy of patients. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Derek Boorman, chairman of the Royal Hospitals NHS Trust for details.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors account for recent trends in lengths of waiting lists for NHS hospital treatment. [16947]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of people waiting for treatment has remained at around 10 per cent. of the number of patients treated for over 20 years. Our policy is to ensure that waiting times for treatment are reduced. Nearly half of patients have a waiting time of less than five weeks. In 1987 more than 200,000 were waiting over a year; in December 1994 fewer than 55,000 were waiting over a year. This success has been achieved by a combination of increased activity and better management of specialities with waiting lists.

  Stress
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence her Department has that the stress under which(a) nurses, (b) doctors, (c) pharmacists,
  (d) physiotherapists and (e) ambulance women and other health care professions including dentists has increased or decreased in (i) the last year, (ii) the last four years and (iii) the last 15 years; and if she will make a statement on the suicide rates amongst the above professions. [16948]

  Mr. Malone
  We have commissioned Dr Toby Wall of the university of Sheffield to carry out a five-year study of the mental health of the national health service work force and the first results from this research are expected to be available later this year.

  Trauma Unit Research Project
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give further details of progress on the trauma pilot scheme at the Staffordshire infirmary; and when she expects to receive the completed evaluation and make proposals for implementation of any recommendations for change throughout England and Wales. [16850]

  Mr. Sackville
  We now expect to receive the final report in June 1995. Copies will be placed in the Library when it is published. We will be considering our policy on trauma centres in the light of the report. Consideration of the report in respect of Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total health budget per patient is held by GP fundholders, total fundholders and community fundholders. [14994]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: For 1994–95 general practitioner fundholders hold nearly 9 per cent. of the total national health service budget per patient. In addition to the four pilots which began in 1994–95, total purchasing pilots will begin on 1 April 1995. The 52 sites involved in the total purchasing pilot schemes will manage all hospital and community health services resources on behalf of their patients. Community fundholders will not hold a budget until 1996–97.

EDUCATION

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the total number of administrative staff employed by each local education authority in England for each year since 1988. [16368]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Funding
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she intends to meet a cross-party delegation from Devon concerning education funding during March; [16397]

  (2) when she expects to respond to the two recent letters from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, requesting an urgent meeting about education cuts in Devon; [16398]

  (3) if she will list the names of Conservative hon. Members from Devon and Cornwall who have written to her regarding education cuts in those counties; and when she last met Conservative hon. Members from Devon and Cornwall to discuss education budgets.[16399]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend met cross-party delegations of Members from Devon to discuss education funding on 22 March and from Cornwall on 9 February 1995.

  We are aware of one outstanding letter from the hon. Member to which my right hon. Friend will reply shortly.

  My right hon. Friend and I have received letters on education funding in Devon and Cornwall from the following Conservative Members:
  Mr. Rupert Allason, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Sir Peter Emery, Dame Janet Fookes, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Patrick Nichols, Mrs. Emma Nicholson, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Computer Pornography
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the departmental advice for schools and parents on computer pornography will be published; how many leaflets will be available; and how they will be distributed. [16800]

  Mr. Forth
  An information sheet for schools and a leaflet of advice for parents were published by the National Council for Educational Technology in February. These are available to all schools and libraries which request them. It is for individual schools to decide how many copies of the parents' leaflet to distribute.

  School Meals
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the amount of money spent by local education authorities in England on providing school meals other than those who are entitled to free school meals in the last year for which figures are available. [16792]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. Gross expenditure by local education authorities in England on their school catering services in 1993–94, covering both free and paid meals, is estimated to have been £685.2 million.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to review the arrangements for the ethnic monitoring of school pupils. [17067]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have today issued a consultation paper to local education authorities and other interested organisations, reviewing the current arrangements for the ethnic monitoring of school pupils and inviting comments on proposals to change those arrangements. Subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise we propose to replace the ethnic monitoring survey of school pupils in England with a combination of approaches:

  a. to incorporate two additional questions within the schools' census in respect of (i) the number of minority ethnic pupils; and (ii) the number of pupils for whom English is a second language;

  b. to obtain information about the progress of minority ethnic pupils in individual schools, by means of information gathered by Ofsted as part of its regular inspection process; and

  c. to undertake ad hoc surveys and research, as necessary, to look in greater depth at particular issues.

  These are designed to check that all minority ethnic groups have equal opportunities to achieve their full potential. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to increase the number of people from ethnic minorities continuing to higher education. [16388]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are concerned to promote wider participation in HE, including participation of people from ethnic minorities. The proportion of people from ethnic minorities continuing to HE is higher than the proportion of people from ethnic minorities in the population at large.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of producing and circulating the last Departmental annual report; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold and at what price. [16653]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's annual report published on 7 March 1995 cost £22,500 to prepare for printing.

  It was published by HMSO and sold through their bookshops at £11.65 per copy. Printing costs were borne by HMSO, who look to recover these and other administrative costs from sales. The print run was £2,900 and 2345 copies have been sold up to 24 March.

  The Department obtained copies to distribute to its own staff at middle management level and above, to institutions of further and higher education and local education authorities and to various educational organisations. The cost of buying copies from HMSO and circulating these was some £10,000.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms.[16654]

  Mr. Forth
  Departmental reports were published for the first time in 1991. The five reports have been published as Command Papers by HMSO.
  570
  The costs to the Department of preparing the reports for printing are as given. Printing costs were borne by HMSO, which looks to recover these and administrative costs from sales revenue.

  Financial year

  Cash terms £

  At 1993–94 prices £

  1990–91

  4,900

  5,581

  1991–92

  4,800

  5,144

  1992–93

  5,200

  5,359

  1993–94

  15,200

  15,200

  1994–95

  22,500

  22,059

  Costs of buying in and circulating copies of the report were £10,000 in 1994–95. Costs are not held separately for the four previous years.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will ring fence finance for special needs pupils. [16593]

  Mr. Forth
  No. Detailed spending decisions are for individual schools and local authorities to make in the light of their own particular circumstances and from within the resources available to them.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will implement the new code to protect special needs pupils. [16595]

  Mr. Forth
  The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs came into effect on 1 September 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will incorporate special training for teachers in recognition of special needs pupils suffering from dyslexia. [16590]

  Mr. Forth
  It is a requirement that initial teacher training courses should equip teachers with the skills to identify special educational needs.

  The Government make money available to local education authorities to contribute, under the grant for education support and training—GEST—programme, towards the cost of in-service training for teachers of children with special educational needs. This enables local education authorities to bid for funds to provide for particular disability areas, such as dyslexia, as appropriate to local needs.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will institute screening for pre-school children to establish the need for special care. [16596]

  Mr. Forth
  Care facilities for the under fives are a matter for local social services departments, central responsibility for which rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There are already a variety of routes by which special educational needs can be recognised, including the family doctor, the child health services and playgroup or nursery provision.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has had from vice-chancellors and principals regarding the effect of changes in Benefit Agency regulations on mature students taking higher education courses. [16382]
  571
  Mr. Boswell
  Social security regulations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has, however, received a number of representations concerning students and benefits.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many press officers there are in her Department currently; and what figure was in 1979. [16558]

  Mr. Boswell
  There are currently 11 press officers in the Department. Information for 1979 is not available.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual expenditure on discretionary awards for students attending further education college courses for each of the metropolitan authorities, for each financial year since 1990–91. [16225]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested for the academic years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, the latest year for which data are available, is shown in the table. Financial year information is not available.

  Expenditure on further education discretionary awards in the metropolitan authorities in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93

  £"000

  LEA name

  1990–91 Expenditure

  1991–92 Expenditure

  1992–93 Expenditure

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  923

  1,299

  955

  Coventry

  527

  558

  514

  Dudley

  456

  393

  443

  Sandwell

  497

  871

  261

  Solihull

  129

  201

  230

  Walsall

  1,451

  1,894

  1,879

  Wolverhampton

  75

  35

  23

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  1,047

  1,369

  1,404

  Liverpool

  5,697

  4,433

  2,329

  St. Helens

  531

  678

  665

  Sefton

  278

  224

  206

  Wirral2

  1,453

  1,653

  1,731

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  536

  821

  739

  Bury

  510

  642

  609

  Manchester

  —

  1,836

  2,105

  Oldham

  544

  459

  631

  Rochdale

  490

  741

  903

  Salford

  423

  314

  149

  Stockport

  504

  691

  806

  Tameside

  239

  352

  403

  Trafford1

  n/a

  302

  340

  Wigan

  418

  499

  514

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley2

  1,270

  789

  1,064

  Doncaster

  698

  685

  685

  Rotherham

  669

  904

  727

  Sheffield

  2,026

  1,931

  630

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  1,612

  1,778

  2,190

  Calderdale

  250

  310

  281

  Kirklees

  1,403

  2,196

  3,123

  572

  Expenditure on further education discretionary awards in the metropolitan authorities in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93

  £"000

  LEA name

  1990–91 Expenditure

  1991–92 Expenditure

  1992–93 Expenditure

  Leeds

  2,117

  2,743

  2,858

  Wakefield

  1,018

  1,048

  992

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  454

  376

  235

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  609

  770

  430

  North Tyneside

  706

  1,024

  738

  South Tyneside

  326

  450

  353

  Sunderland1

  n/a

  933

  —

  Total metropolitan authorities

  29,883

  337,333

  32,144

  Notes:

  —Between £0 and £500.

  1 Discretionary awards data not provided in 1990–91.

  2 Incomplete returns were received from Wirral and Barnsley LEAs in 1991–92.

  3 The 1991–92 total has been grossed to compensate for partial returners.

  Source:

  F503G

  Expenditure, Derbyshire
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in total on education in
  Derbyshire at constant prices in each of the last 20 years. [16299]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows total expenditure by Derbyshire local education authority from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Derbyshire County Council

  Gross Expenditure (1994–95 prices) £ million

  1974–75

  381,861.4

  1975–76

  387,288.2

  1976–77

  395,135.5

  1977–78

  372,438.5

  1978–79

  378,791.1

  1979–80

  369,800.4

  1980–81

  378,639.3

  1981–82

  381,745.2

  1982–83

  379,909.1

  1983–84

  382,882.8

  1984–85

  385,540.5

  1985–86

  388,305.3

  1986–87

  414,685.8

  1987–88

  437,179.5

  1988–89

  451,680.7

  1989–90

  461,473.9

  1990–91

  451,060.5

  1991–92

  450,054.8

  1992–93

  461,817.8

  1993–941

  380,087.7

  1 Provisional

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent per pupils in Derbyshire in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each of the last 20 years at constant prices. [16481]
  573
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows expenditure by Derbyshire local education authority on(a) pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on (b) secondary pupils from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  Derbyshire County Council Spending per pupil (1994–95 prices)

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1974–75

  1,212

  2,061

  1975–76

  1,081

  1,840

  1976–77

  1,102

  1,835

  1977–78

  1,044

  1,715

  1978–79

  1,064

  1,746

  1979–80

  1,049

  1,677

  1980–81

  1,071

  1,585

  1981–82

  1,119

  1,624

  1982–83

  1,158

  1,654

  1983–84

  1,206

  1,713

  1984–85

  1,217

  1,761

  1985–86

  1,235

  1,838

  1986–87

  1,346

  2,064

  1987–88

  1,426

  2,277

  1988–89

  1,470

  2,458

  1989–90

  1,550

  2,491

  1990–91

  1,588

  2,448

  1991–92

  1,587

  2,404

  1992–93

  1,657

  2,429

  1993–941

  1,632

  2,258

  1 Provisional

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the amount held back by Derbyshire county council of its total education budget. [16482]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the financial year 1994–95, Derbyshire county council is retaining 31.3 per cent. of its general schools budget.

  Virtual Universities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans her Department has to explore the concept of virtual universities. [16384]

  Mr. Boswell
  None. The use of information technology in teaching, learning and research is primarily a matter for individual universities and colleges. The higher education funding councils will shortly be consulting higher education institutions on issues surrounding the exploitation of information systems with a view to considering a strategy for their use in higher education over the next decade.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines her Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16207]

  Mr. Forth
  Central Government conventions for the use of public relations companies are set out in a working guide for Government information officers, a copy of which is available in the Library. The same conventions generally apply to executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much her Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much 574
  contracts with the private sector cost; and if she will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16281]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not employ public relation companies.

  School Places
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much an unfilled place costs at(a) a primary school and (b) a secondary school. [16300]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The national average premises-related cost of maintaining a school place is estimated to be £182 a year for a primary school and £303 a year for a secondary school at 1995–96 prices. The actual cost and the scope for realising savings from removal of surplus school places in practice will depend on local circumstances.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will state the cost of producing and distributing to schools her recent document about the private finance initiative being used in education. [16479]

  Mr. Forth
  The total cost of designing and printing the document about the private finance initiative in education, "Education means Business" was £101,000. Distribution of one copy to schools cost some £18,400. The chief target audience for the booklet was the business community.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the value and scope of capital spending projects in schools which have taken advantage of the private finance initiative. [16480]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally. We are, however, actively reviewing ways in which school-business partnerships may be further encouraged to enable private sector investment and expertise to play its full part in education provision.

  Student Hardship
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations she has received from university administrators and student unions on students facing hardship. [16387]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from university administrators and student unions on the subject of student support.

  Teaching and Research
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps her Department is taking to ensure parity of esteem between teaching and research in higher education. [16385]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend attaches importance to both teaching and research. It is however for individual universities and colleges to decide on the relative weight to attach to each in the light of their institutional missions.

  BMA Medical Students'Committee
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were her reasons for refusal on 13
  575
  February to meet the British Medical Association's medical students' committee. [16117]

  Mr. Boswell
  I wrote again on 15 March to explain that the pressure of other commitments means that I am unable to meet representatives of the medical students" committee. I am well aware of the arguments advanced by the BMA medical students' committee, and have answered the points raised in correspondence.

  Student Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received concerning the level of maintenance grant and loans for(a) all students and (b) medical students. [16116]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations for a variety of reasons about levels of student support, both for all students and for medical students.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what financial support is available from public funds to a person, born in 1976, who is studying at college for more than 20 hours a week and whose parents are in receipt of income support; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The person could apply to his or her local education authority for a discretionary award. The decision on how many awards to make, to whom, and the rate payable is a matter purely for LEAs. Anyone over 18 can also apply for a career development loan. These are designed to cover course fees and other living costs. The person may also be eligible for a mandatory award depending on the type of course. In addition, depending on his or her exact age and circumstances, some social security benefits might be available.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of statutory age pupils attended a special school in each local education authority as at January 1994; and what was the percentage nationally. [14989]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Percentage of pupils of compulsory school age attending maintained special schools in each Local Education Authority in England January 1994

  LEA

  Percentage of pupils attending special schools

  Corporation of London

  0.00

  Camden

  1.68

  Greenwich

  2.12

  Hackney

  2.44

  Hammersmith

  2.41

  Islington

  1.40

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.47

  Lambeth

  3.14

  Lewisham

  1.68

  Southwark

  1.53

  Tower Hamlets

  1.70

  Wandsworth

  3.30

  Westminster

  1.05

  Barking

  0.74

  Barnet

  0.70

  Bexley

  0.92

  576

  Percentage of pupils of compulsory school age attending maintained special schools in each Local Education Authority in England January 1994

  LEA

  Percentage of pupils attending special schools

  Brent

  1.19

  Bromley

  1.04

  Croydon

  1.26

  Ealing

  1.30

  Enfield

  1.10

  Haringey

  1.31

  Harrow

  0.79

  Havering

  0.60

  Hillingdon

  1.29

  Hounslow

  1.32

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.41

  Merton

  1.27

  Newham

  0.62

  Redbridge

  1.37

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.86

  Sutton

  1.10

  Waltham Forest

  2.22

  Birmingham

  1.75

  Coventry

  1.88

  Dudley

  1.42

  Sandwell

  1.75

  Solihull

  0.91

  Walsall

  1.13

  Wolverhampton

  1.39

  Knowsley

  2.40

  Liverpool

  2.06

  St. Helens

  1.71

  Sefton

  0.95

  Wirral

  1.56

  Bolton

  1.14

  Bury

  1.11

  Manchester

  2.35

  Oldham

  1.17

  Rochdale

  1.45

  Salford

  1.24

  Stockport

  0.96

  Tameside

  1.31

  Trafford

  1.24

  Wigan

  1.97

  Barnsley

  0.44

  Doncaster

  1.49

  Rotherham

  1.54

  Sheffield

  1.28

  Bradford

  0.86

  Calderdale

  0.43

  Kirklees

  1.14

  Leeds

  0.93

  Wakefield

  1.34

  Gateshead

  1.36

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1.95

  North Tyneside

  1.56

  South Tyneside

  1.54

  Sunderland

  1.52

  Isles of Scilly

  0.00

  Avon

  1.62

  Bedfordshire

  1.36

  Berkshire

  1.57

  Buckinghamshire

  1.71

  Cambridgeshire

  1.02

  Cheshire

  0.94

  Cleveland

  1.50

  Cornwall

  0.42

  Cumbria

  0.32

  Derbyshire

  0.87

  Devon

  1.35

  Dorset

  1.34

  Durham

  1.24

  East Sussex

  1.59

  Essex

  1.20

  577

  Percentage of pupils of compulsory school age attending maintained special schools in each Local Education Authority in England January 1994

  LEA

  Percentage of pupils attending special schools

  Gloucestershire

  1.75

  Hampshire

  1.60

  Hereford and Worcester

  1.21

  Hertfordshire

  1.41

  Humberside

  0.91

  Isle of Wight

  1.34

  Kent

  1.38

  Lancashire

  1.51

  Leicestershire

  0.79

  Lincolnshire

  1.31

  Norfolk

  0.91

  North Yorkshire

  1.04

  Northamptonshire

  1.14

  Northumberland

  1.17

  Nottinghamshire

  0.92

  Oxfordshire

  1.08

  Shropshire

  0.85

  Somerset

  0.98

  Staffordshire

  1.42

  Suffolk

  0.85

  Surrey

  1.62

  Warwickshire

  1.54

  West Sussex

  1.35

  Wiltshire

  0.95

  England

  1.30

SCOTLAND

  Training and Enterprise Programmes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways the eligibility, financial and operating rules which apply to local enterprise companies in Scotland differ from those outlined in the 1995–96 training and enterprise council operating agreement for(a) youth training and youth credits and (b) training for work; and if he will make a statement. [15158]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The rules which govern the delivery by local enterprise companies in Scotland of the principal Government-funded training and enterprise programmes for 1995–96 are set out in an operating agreement between Scottish Enterprise/Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies which follows closely that for training and enterprise councils.

  Housing, Wigtown
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the legal status of the Wigtown housing association and its membership; what funds have been provided to it from public sources; and if he will make a statement. [15816]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In developing proposals for the transfer of its housing stock to a locally based housing association, Wigtown district council has supported the formation of Wigtown housing association. I understand that the steering group of Wigtown housing association has recently applied for registration as a friendly society in terms of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. It expects to apply in due course for registration with Scottish Homes. Current membership 578
  proposals are for a voluntary board of management with 16 members, comprising three local authority members, six tenants and seven other local people with the skills necessary to run such an organisation.

  I understand that the council intends to apply for the consent of the Secretary of State, in terms of section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988, to provide financial assistance towards the new association's setting-up costs.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what request he has received from Wigtown district council regarding the transfer of its housing stock to a housing association; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [15814]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Wigtown district council has not yet applied to the Secretary of State for consent to transfer its housing stock to a locally based housing association, although I am aware that the council is currently developing proposals in consultation with tenants. The Secretary of State is generally sympathetic to requests from local authorities to transfer housing stock; each case is considered on it merits and must command the support of the tenants involved.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the proposed transfer of housing stock by Wigtown district council to a housing association; if the council has drawn to his attention potential conflicts of interest; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement. [15815]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has received six representations from two individuals on a range of issues connected with the proposed transfer of Wigtown district council's housing stock, including the potential for conflict of interest.

  The question of conflict of interest is primarily a matter for the council to address. The council is aware that it will have to take steps to avoid any conflict of interest, particularly in the context of discussions of financial arrangements, which may arise in the stock transfer process.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish his revised guidance to local authorities relating to large-scale voluntary transfers of their housing stock; and if he will take steps to prevent authorities with special reference to Wigtown district council carrying through such transfers before the guidance has been published. [16821]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect that revised guidance to local authorities on large-scale voluntary transfers of housing stock will be issued by early summer. This will replace advice issued in 1988 which currently guides local authorities transferring stock. There is no reason why Wigtown district council should not seek to develop proposals for a transfer of stock before publication of the revised guidance.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from district councils for transfer of housing stocks to housing associations or private landlords. [15817]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State receives many requests from district councils to transfer housing to housing associations and private
  579
  landlords. Since January 1989, he has approved over 180 applications to transfer a total of over 13,000 houses to the private sector, mainly to locally based housing associations.

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Payments
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers or crofters in Scotland received environmentally sensitive area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £50,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £5,000 or (e) £1,000 in the last year for which figures are available. [15523]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information, in the format requested, is set out in the following table. The figures are for 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available.

  Farmers/crofters receiving payments of more than:

  Number

  (a) £100,000

  —

  (b) £50,000

  —

  (c) £10,000

  —

  (d) £5,000

  10

  (e) £1,000

  278

  In addition, a number of participants received payments of £1,000 or less.

  Hospital and Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by(a) Argyll and Clyde, (b) Western Isles, (c) Tayside, (d) Shetland, (e) Orkney, (f) Lothian, (g) Lanarkshire, (h) Highland, (i) Greater Glasgow, (j) Grampian, (k) Forth Valley, (i) Fife, (m) Dumfries and Galloway, (n) Borders and (o) Ayrshire and Arran health boards, including the successful tenderer and value of contracts. [15768]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is available but as it is lengthy, I have arranged to place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of goat pox were reported in each year since 1985. [15975]

  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of goat pox have ever been recorded in Scotland.

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what remuneration and expenses Mr. Stephen P. Newall will receive as chairman of the Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust; and what is the membership of this board. [16877]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The chairman of the Lomond Healthcare NHS trust, Mr. Stephen P. Newall, receives remuneration of £17,145 per annum and is entitled to claim travel and subsistence expenses at standard rates. The non-executive directors of the trust board have still to be announced.

  Incontinence Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if NHS Executive Guidance (EL(93)54) and Agenda for Action on Continence Services (1991) or their Scottish counterparts have been implemented in all health board areas; and if he will make a statement. [15963]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish health management efficiency group published a report on incontinence services in the community in November 1993 which was circulated widely to bodies in the NHS in Scotland including health boards, which are expected to take account of its recommendations.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects the Scottish Record Office to achieve in 1995–96. [17152]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have set the Scottish Record Office the following key targets for 1995–96:to reduce the unit cost of preserving and making available the records of Scotland by 4 per cent. in real terms;
  to increase the number of catalogue entries available for public scrutiny on the electronic system from 119,000 in 1994–95 to 122,000;
  to produce material from the same building for readers in 30 minutes or less in 90 per cent. of cases, absorbing up to a 2 per cent. increase in demand;
  to answer 85 per cent. of correspondence within 10 days, absorbing up to a 2 per cent. increase in demand; and
  to discuss with every shadow local authority the arrangements each proposes for the preservation and management of the records of the new councils after 1 April 1996.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas will have individual assessors appointed following local government reform in Scotland on 1 April 1996. [17151]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Having considered representations made in response to consultation on this subject, I have decided that in terms of each assessor's geographical area of responsibility, apart from in Strathclyde region, the present arrangement should continue whereby there are joint arrangements for Highland and Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland and there is one assessor appointed for each other present regional council area. In the Strathclyde area, we propose that there should be five separate assessors with geographical responsibilities extending respectively to Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Argyll and Bute together with Dunbartonshire. The new local authorities for the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife and Glasgow will therefore each appoint their own assessor and in other areas joint boards will be introduced to oversee this service.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what compensation will be available for staff who are obliged to take lower-paid jobs as a result of the reorganisation of local government in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [17153]

  Mr. Kynoch
  On 5 December 1994, my hon. Friend, the former Minister with responsibility for industry and local government issued for comment proposals for compensating local authority staff who may be obliged to
  581
  accept lower-paid jobs as a result of local government reorganisation in Scotland. The responses have been carefully considered and I will be bringing forward shortly regulations to introduce a new scheme for compensation.

  In essence, the scheme will allow for current staff appointed during the period 6 April 1995 to 31 March 1997 to lower-paid jobs in the new local authorities, the new water and sewerage authorities or the Scottish children's reporter administration to have their present salary maintained for a transitional three-year period.

  The scheme will allow the new authorities, during the crucial transitional period, to retain and make use of experienced personnel who would otherwise be made redundant. By avoiding the need for redundancy payments and encouraging councils to retrain existing employees in

  Pay Beds

  £

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Tayside

  Scottish totals

  1979–80

  570

  606

  28,556

  3,456

  6,184

  96,705

  4,599

  50,551

  4,719

  195,946

  1980–81

  960

  387

  18,384

  4,327

  6,436

  88,698

  4,635

  51,909

  4,332

  180,068

  1981–82

  552

  204

  13,850

  3,709

  6,444

  89,711

  754

  52,388

  5,490

  173,102

  1982–83

  628

  1,729

  10,377

  4,921

  3,292

  93,309

  994

  44,907

  10,212

  170,369

  1983–84

  1,584

  345

  7,195

  8,570

  845

  92,987

  1,613

  63,629

  10,324

  187,092

  1984–85

  1,305

  995

  6,102

  6,700

  1,295

  36,747

  3,057

  63,260

  6,718

  126,179

  1985–86

  1,488

  1,142

  5,301

  5,280

  1,479

  37,022

  1,666

  64,334

  7,499

  125,211

  1986–87

  1,032

  1,254

  8,624

  5,768

  528

  33,433

  2,603

  91,264

  9,551

  154,057

  1987–88

  507

  670

  6,337

  6,771

  1,359

  40,957

  3,671

  88,027

  6,871

  155,170

  1988–89

  1,360

  3,322

  5,100

  7,020

  1,443

  35,573

  4,896

  106,790

  9,449

  174,953

  1989–90

  819

  9,563

  4,274

  6,986

  4,199

  33,821

  3,840

  126,520

  5,229

  195,251

  1990–91

  468

  10,936

  0

  7,358

  9,810

  39,135

  6,425

  158,204

  6,480

  238,816

  1991–92

  325

  12,144

  1,094

  8,608

  11,000

  49,862

  7,813

  194,065

  7,451

  292,362

  1992–93

  0

  11,773

  252

  9,380

  15,858

  19,978

  9,799

  180,223

  11,060

  258,323

  1993–94

  0

  9,403

  0

  8,357

  3,177

  0

  51

  133,854

  8,534

  163,376

  The following health boards have not had pay beds since 1979–80: Argyll and Clyde, Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance his Department has issued to NHS trust hospitals on the operation of pay beds with particular reference to patients with private medical insurance; [16332]

  (2) what representations his Department has received from private medical insurance companies on the operation of pay beds by NHS trust hospitals in the last three years. [16333]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: There is no compulsion on health boards and NHS trusts to provide pay beds but they are encouraged to do so as a means of contributing to income generation. The decision whether or not to provide pay beds is entirely for boards and trusts to determine within the terms of Section 55 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.

  No representations have been received from private medical insurance companies and no specific guidance has been issued to NHS trusts on the operation of pay beds.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of pay beds in (i) 1979 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available and (b) the amounts of revenue raised through the operation of pay beds in 1979 for the latest year
  582
  new jobs, this scheme should benefit staff, employers and the taxpayer.

  Pay Beds
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amounts of revenue were gathered for the NHS by the operation of pay beds for each health board area in Scotland for each financial year since 1979. [16334]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The following table has been derived from health board annual accounts and shows revenue generated for the NHS by the operation of pay beds for each health board area in Scotland for each financial year since 1979. The amounts shown from 1992–93 onwards do not include pay beds sited in NHS trust hospitals. Information on pay beds for NHS trust hospitals is not collected centrally.

  for which figures are available and for each national health service hospital in Scotland. [16329]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The following tables have been derived from health board annual accounts. The latest year in which numbers of pay beds were collected was 1988. The latest year in which amounts of revenue raised through the operation of pay beds was 1993. The pay bed numbers for 1979 and 1988 are the total for health boards. A breakdown to hospital level is not available centrally.

  The revenue figure for 1993 excludes any revenue collected by NHS trust hospitals. Information on pay beds for NHS trust hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Table 1: Number of NHS Pay Beds

  Year

  Number of pay beds

  1979

  114

  1988

  113

  Table 2: Revenue, from NHS pay beds managed by Health Boards

  Year

  £

  1979

  195,946

  1988

  174,953

  1993

  163,376

  Pupils (Costs)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the average amount of money spent by his Department on educating a pupil within(a) primary and (b) secondary schools adjusted for 1992–93 prices for each year since 1979 and for each education authority in Scotland; [16318]

  (2) what was the average amount of money spent by his Department on educating a pupil within (a) primary and (b) secondary schools adjusted for 1992–93 for each year since 1979. [16321]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Direct expenditure by the Scottish Office on the education of school pupils is limited to grants made available to Jordanhill school, the self-governing Dornoch academy, and certain residential special schools. Grants are also made available for pupils at certain independent schools under the assisted places scheme. Comprehensive information on the division of

  Education Authority Schools Average number of pupils per class at September

  Education authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1987

  1989

  1991

  1993

  Primary schools1

  Scotland

  23.9

  23.8

  23.8

  23.8

  25.3

  25.2

  24.9

  24.7

  24.7

  24.7

  Borders

  21.8

  21.4

  21.1

  21.1

  22.5

  22.8

  23.1

  22.9

  22.6

  22.8

  Central

  23.0

  22.4

  22.4

  21.9

  24.0

  24.0

  25.0

  24.9

  24.6

  24.7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  22.3

  22.1

  22.3

  21.7

  22.7

  22.5

  22.8

  22.9

  23.3

  23.3

  Fife

  25.5

  25.6

  25.9

  25.9

  26.6

  26.3

  26.3

  25.5

  25.4

  25.4

  Grampian

  23.2

  22.9

  23.0

  22.9

  24.4

  24.7

  24.4

  24.6

  24.8

  24.6

  Highland

  21.5

  21.0

  21.3

  21.2

  22.7

  22.6

  22.7

  22.2

  21.8

  21.5

  Lothian

  22.5

  21.9

  22.1

  23.0

  25.9

  25.9

  25.7

  25.5

  25.8

  25.8

  Strathclyde

  25.0

  25.3

  25.2

  25.0

  26.3

  26.0

  25.4

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  Tayside

  23.5

  23.9

  23.7

  23.8

  24.9

  24.7

  24.2

  24.6

  24.8

  25.2

  Orkney

  20.6

  20.2

  20.0

  20.5

  21.2

  20.7

  19.0

  20.3

  18.8

  19.4

  Shetland

  18.3

  18.1

  17.9

  17.2

  18.8

  18.2

  18.2

  17.0

  17.5

  17.3

  Western Isles

  19.6

  19.1

  19.1

  18.7

  19.5

  20.0

  19.1

  18.8

  17.9

  17.2

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  21.3

  20.8

  20.7

  21.1

  21.4

  21.3

  21.3

  20.8

  20.1

  20.1

  Ayr

  25.1

  25.4

  25.4

  25.1

  26.4

  25.9

  25.3

  25.2

  25.0

  25.2

  Dunbarton

  24.9

  25.4

  25.3

  25.3

  26.6

  26.7

  26.4

  26.0

  26.0

  25.8

  Glasgow

  24.7

  24.9

  24.9

  24.4

  25.9

  25.7

  25.1

  24.7

  24.8

  24.7

  Lanark

  25.4

  25.5

  25.4

  25.4

  27.0

  26.5

  25.5

  25.2

  25.0

  24.9

  Renfrew

  26.1

  26.2

  26.0

  26.0

  26.9

  26.5

  26.0

  25.9

  26.1

  26.4

  Secondary schools

  Scotland

  18.9

  19.0

  19.1

  19.0

  19.5

  n/a

  18.8

  18.6

  18.9

  19.4

  Borders

  18.1

  18.2

  16.7

  17.8

  19.1

  n/a

  19.2

  17.6

  17.7

  18.0

  Central

  18.7

  19.3

  19.2

  18.8

  20.0

  n/a

  19.8

  19.5

  19.7

  19.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  18.4

  18.8

  18.3

  19.0

  18.3

  n/a

  18.8

  17.2

  17.1

  17.7

  Fife

  18.8

  19.9

  19.6

  19.6

  19.8

  n/a

  19.7

  19.4

  19.8

  20.0

  Grampian

  17.9

  18.4

  18.5

  18.2

  19.0

  n/a

  18.0

  18.4

  18.9

  19.1

  Highland

  17.8

  17.1

  17.2

  17.4

  17.7

  n/a

  17.8

  17.0

  17.6

  18.0

  Lothian

  17.8

  17.6

  17.9

  18.1

  19.1

  n/a

  19.1

  18.3

  18.5

  19.2

  Strathclyde

  19.8

  19.9

  19.9

  20.0

  20.3

  n/a

  19.3

  19.2

  19.6

  20.1

  Tayside

  18.2

  17.9

  18.1

  17.6

  18.8

  n/a

  17.9

  17.3

  17.8

  18.8

  Orkney

  14.6

  15.5

  15.1

  13.8

  15.4

  n/a

  15.8

  15.2

  14.9

  15.2

  Shetland

  15.2

  14.3

  14.8

  14.9

  15.1

  n/a

  15.8

  14.1

  13.5

  14.3

  Western Isles

  16.2

  16.2

  17.3

  14.6

  15.5

  n/a

  15.4

  14.1

  14.3

  14.0

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  16.4

  17.3

  17.0

  17.1

  17.8

  n/a

  18.9

  16.9

  17.8

  17.9

  Ayr

  19.5

  19.6

  19.5

  19.8

  20.5

  n/a

  20.2

  18.8

  18.6

  19.4

  Dunbarton

  20.1

  20.4

  19.8

  19.9

  20.3

  n/a

  20.2

  19.7

  20.2

  20.3

  584
  these resources between the primary and secondary sectors is not available.

  Expenditure per pupil in education authority schools is the responsibility of each education authority. Local authority expenditure is supported by aggregate external finance. Such financial support is not specific to particular local authority services and it is for each authority to determine the allocation of all the resources at its disposal.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the average number of pupils per class in Scotland for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each year since 1979; [16323]

  (2) if he will list the average number of pupils in each class for each education authority in Scotland for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each year since 1979. [16322]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The available information on average class size is given in the following table.
  585

  Education Authority Schools Average number of pupils per class at September

  Education authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1987

  1989

  1991

  1993

  Glasgow

  19.8

  19.7

  20.2

  20.0

  19.8

  n/a

  17.4

  18.5

  18.9

  19.5

  Lanark

  20.2

  20.5

  20.0

  20.7

  21.1

  n/a

  20.4

  19.9

  20.4

  20.8

  Renfrew

  19.6

  19.9

  20.2

  20.2

  20.4

  n/a

  18.7

  19.7

  20.2

  20.7

  1 Until the 1983 school census, classes for small numbers of primary pupils withdrawn for short periods of time from their normal classes were included in the calculation of average class size. From 1983, all pupils were counted against their normal class for statistical purposes.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average salary paid to a teacher in Scotland and the average salary paid to a teacher in Scotland as a percentage of average non-manual earnings for each year since 1979. [16320]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Average salary of teachers in Scotland

  Percentage of average male non-manual earnings in Scotland

  1979–80

  5,602

  95.3

  1980–81

  7,435

  102

  1981–82

  8,390

  99

  1982–83

  8,996

  96

  1983–84

  9,620

  94

  1984–85

  10,117

  93

  1987–88

  13,649

  102

  1988–89

  15,333

  105

  1989–90

  16,409

  105

  1990–91

  17,937

  105

  1991–92

  19,611

  108

  1992–93

  21,018

  107

  Intensive care beds1: by health board area of treatment: years ending 31 March

  Intensive Therapy Unit

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Scotland

  125

  136

  137

  142

  159

  166

  168

  166

  Argyll and Clyde

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5

  5

  5

  5

  7

  10

  8

  6

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Grampian

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  10

  11

  11

  Greater Glasgow

  65

  72

  72

  74

  80

  81

  81

  81

  Highland

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Lanarkshire

  13

  15

  15

  16

  19

  19

  20

  19

  Lothian

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  11

  12

  12

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  11

  13

  14

  14

  14

  15

  15

  15

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Intensive Therapy Unit

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Scotland

  166

  166

  182

  189

  198

  219

  230

  250

  Argyll and Clyde

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  7

  12

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  586
  Figures for 1985–86 are not available due to teachers' industrial action. Information for years subsequent to 1992–93 is not yet available.

  Intensive Care Units
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what recent representations he has received from Scottish health boards concerning collective arrangements for the admission of patients to intensive care units; [16316]

  (2) what arrangements exist within the NHS in Scotland for the admission of seriously sick patients to intensive care units; [16317]

  (3) if he will list the number of intensive care beds available for the treatment of patients for each health board area in Scotland for each financial year since 1979. [16328]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received any representations from health boards concerning collective arrangements for the admission of patients to intensive care units. Arrangements for the admission of seriously sick patients to intensive care units are a matter for the relevant trusts and health boards informed by clinical decisions about individual patients.

  Information on the average available staffed intensive care beds is shown in the following table.
  587

  Intensive Therapy Unit

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Borders

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  16

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Forth Valley

  4

  4

  4

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Grampian

  11

  11

  10

  10

  10

  10

  11

  10

  Greater Glasgow

  80

  75

  76

  78

  77

  77

  77

  75

  Highland

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Lanarkshire

  18

  19

  24

  31

  35

  37

  37

  37

  Lothian

  14

  21

  30

  25

  28

  38

  41

  41

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  20

  24

  28

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  1 Average available staffed beds in specialties of intensive therapy unit.

  Source:

  Information and Statistic Division.
  588

  Teachers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of teachers employed and the number and percentages of women employed in

  Education Authority Schools number (full-time equivalents) of teachers1; number (FTE) and percentage of female teachers (at September)

  Education authority

  Total

  1987 Number female

  Per cent female.

  Total

  1988 Number female

  Per cent female.

  Total

  1990 Number female

  Per cent female.

  Total

  1992 Number female

  Per cent female.

  Primary schools

  Scotland

  21,480

  19,457

  90.6

  21,586

  19,619

  90.9

  22,628

  20,745

  91.7

  22,728

  20,947

  92.2

  Borders

  448

  383

  85.5

  466

  404

  86.6

  472

  416

  88.1

  476

  425

  89.4

  Central

  1,162

  1,074

  92.4

  1,160

  1,079

  93.0

  1,165

  1,090

  93.5

  1,167

  1,095

  93.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  654

  562

  86.0

  648

  561

  86.6

  690

  603

  87.4

  697

  620

  88.9

  Fife

  1,524

  1,384

  90.8

  1,552

  1,416

  91.2

  1,614

  1,486

  92.0

  1,617

  1,505

  93.1

  Grampian

  2,251

  1,991

  88.5

  2,261

  1,997

  88.3

  2,280

  2,060

  90.4

  2,361

  2,159

  91.4

  Highland

  1,052

  928

  88.2

  1,052

  933

  88.7

  1,109

  991

  89.4

  1,137

  1,020

  89.7

  Lothian

  2,742

  2,510

  91.5

  2,770

  2,542

  91.8

  2,842

  2,623

  92.3

  2,853

  2,636

  92.4

  Strathclyde

  9,559

  8,805

  92.1

  9,602

  8,875

  92.4

  10,311

  9,575

  92.9

  10,264

  9,557

  93.1

  Tayside

  1,612

  1,402

  87.0

  1,606

  1,399

  87.2

  1,659

  1,471

  88.7

  1,662

  1,493

  89.8

  Orkney

  113

  98

  87.3

  112

  100

  89.8

  125

  112

  89.8

  127

  117

  92.3

  Shetland

  175

  153

  87.6

  174

  151

  86.9

  174

  151

  86.7

  178

  151

  84.6

  Western Isles

  189

  167

  88.6

  182

  161

  88.3

  188

  168

  89.4

  190

  171

  89.6

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  300

  259

  86.5

  311

  270

  86.9

  357

  316

  88.4

  348

  309

  88.9

  Ayr

  1,569

  1,419

  90.5

  1,578

  1,438

  91.1

  1,696

  1,556

  91.7

  1,700

  1,572

  92.5

  Dunbarton

  1,392

  1,313

  94.3

  1,384

  1,302

  94.1

  1,431

  1,363

  95.3

  1,423

  1,359

  95.5

  Glasgow

  2,687

  2,492

  92.7

  2,696

  2,506

  93.0

  3,002

  2,783

  92.7

  3,020

  2,790

  92.4

  Lanark

  2,205

  2,025

  91.9

  2,211

  2,044

  92.4

  2,324

  2,160

  93.0

  2,296

  2,143

  93.3

  Renfrew

  1,407

  1,297

  92.2

  1,423

  1,315

  92.4

  1,501

  1,398

  93.1

  1,478

  1,384

  93.7

  Secondary schools

  Scotland

  25,462

  11,279

  44.3

  24,757

  11,028

  44.5

  23,988

  11,065

  46.1

  23,994

  11,518

  48.0

  Borders

  504

  200

  39.8

  496

  202

  40.7

  494

  209

  42.4

  501

  222

  44.3

  Central

  1,379

  634

  46.0

  1,327

  605

  45.6

  1,276

  602

  47.2

  1,283

  624

  48.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  821

  321

  39.1

  814

  320

  39.3

  778

  313

  40.2

  759

  314

  41.4

  Fife

  1,686

  730

  43.3

  1,657

  732

  44.2

  1,615

  749

  46.4

  1,626

  791

  48.7

  Grampian

  2,452

  1,120

  45.7

  2,393

  1,101

  46.0

  2,312

  1,081

  46.8

  2,444

  1,217

  49.8

  Highland

  1,148

  498

  43.3

  1,153

  494

  42.8

  1,150

  519

  45.1

  1,229

  603

  49.0

  Lothian

  3,213

  1,413

  44.0

  3,092

  1,357

  43.9

  2,945

  1,341

  45.6

  2,888

  1,354

  46.9

  Strathclyde

  11,697

  5,247

  44.9

  11,330

  5,131

  45.3

  11,014

  5,170

  46.9

  10,879

  5,284

  48.6

  Tayside

  2,032

  914

  45.0

  1,960

  875

  44.7

  1,862

  857

  46.0

  1,832

  878

  47.9

  Orkney

  120

  36

  30.2

  126

  46

  36.1

  132

  49

  36.7

  135

  51

  38.1

  Shetland

  168

  71

  42.1

  173

  73

  42.5

  178

  78

  44.0

  190

  88

  46.1

  Western Isles

  243

  94

  38.9

  238

  92

  38.6

  233

  95

  40.9

  228

  93

  41.0

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  351

  136

  38.8

  346

  145

  41.8

  360

  160

  44.4

  352

  159

  45.3

  Ayr

  1,923

  832

  43.3

  1,856

  808

  43.5

  1,868

  859

  46.0

  1,843

  881

  47.8

  Dunbarton

  1,672

  825

  49.4

  1,630

  803

  49.3

  1,627

  820

  50.4

  1,663

  842

  50.6

  Glasgow

  3,165

  1,368

  43.2

  3,063

  1,354

  44.2

  2,828

  1,283

  45.4

  2,703

  1,275

  47.2

  Lanark

  2,683

  1,194

  44.5

  2,585

  1,154

  44.7

  2,550

  1,176

  46.1

  2,534

  1,214

  47.9

  Renfrew

  1,904

  892

  46.8

  1,850

  868

  46.9

  1,781

  873

  49.0

  1,784

  912

  51.1

  1 The total figures given are based on statistical returns made by individual teachers, and hence may differ slightly from those figures published elsewhere which are based on the totals reported by each school.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of(a) staff and (b) women employed at head teacher, assistant head teacher and deputy head teacher levels for (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools for each education authority within Scotland for each year since 1985. [16326]
  590
  these posts for each education authority within Scotland for each year since 1985 for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [16325]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The available information is given in the following table:
  591

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents)at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1987

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  2,299

  1,484

  14

  11

  1,611

  1,444

  Borders

  71

  36

  0

  0

  22

  20

  Central

  114

  83

  0

  0

  89

  76

  Dumfries and Galloway

  113

  58

  0

  0

  36

  30

  Fife

  142

  84

  0

  0

  112

  101

  Grampian

  260

  139

  0

  0

  135

  110

  Highland

  202

  126

  0

  0

  55

  50

  Lothian

  234

  137

  14

  11

  209

  192

  Strathclyde

  886

  661

  0

  0

  799

  734

  Tayside

  187

  101

  0

  0

  122

  102

  Orkney

  20

  15

  0

  0

  5

  5

  Shetland

  29

  16

  0

  0

  13

  11

  Western Isles

  41

  29

  0

  0

  14

  13

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  75

  45

  0

  0

  17

  15

  Ayr

  149

  91

  0

  0

  137

  126

  Dunbarton

  113

  90

  0

  0

  125

  116

  Glasgow

  232

  192

  0

  0

  214

  197

  Lanark

  210

  172

  0

  0

  179

  164

  Renfrew

  107

  70

  0

  0

  128

  117

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents)
  at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1988

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  2,255

  1,480

  238

  206

  1,340

  1,197

  Borders

  77

  43

  4

  4

  20

  19

  Central

  112

  83

  15

  14

  73

  62

  Dumfries and Galloway

  110

  56

  5

  5

  28

  24

  Fife

  142

  87

  23

  22

  78

  69

  Grampian

  265

  145

  29

  21

  108

  91

  Highland

  200

  128

  5

  5

  49

  44

  Lothian

  231

  137

  45

  39

  179

  160

  Strathclyde

  848

  636

  85

  75

  682

  626

  Tayside

  187

  105

  23

  18

  97

  81

  Orkney

  20

  15

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Shetland

  29

  17

  2

  2

  11

  9

  Western Isles

  36

  27

  1

  1

  13

  11

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  72

  42

  2

  1

  15

  14

  Ayr

  146

  90

  22

  21

  106

  97

  Dunbarton

  108

  88

  16

  15

  99

  90

  Glasgow

  220

  185

  12

  11

  185

  170

  Lanark

  199

  164

  14

  11

  172

  159

  Renfrew

  104

  68

  19

  16

  105

  96

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1990

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  2,301

  1,597

  293

  253

  1,187

  1,074

  Borders

  75

  44

  4

  4

  19

  18

  Central

  113

  85

  23

  19

  63

  57

  Dumfries and Galloway

  113

  60

  4

  4

  28

  25

  Fife

  141

  91

  25

  25

  82

  72

  Grampian

  265

  167

  40

  31

  92

  83

  Highland

  200

  134

  9

  9

  40

  34

  Lothian

  240

  154

  46

  37

  159

  141

  Strathclyde

  889

  694

  113

  102

  591

  546

  Tayside

  184

  107

  26

  20

  90

  79

  Orkney

  20

  16

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Shetland

  27

  19

  2

  2

  10

  8

  592 593

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1990

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Western Isles

  34

  27

  1

  1

  13

  10

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  74

  50

  3

  2

  11

  10

  Ayr

  151

  95

  24

  23

  101

  93

  Dunbarton

  115

  102

  20

  18

  90

  83

  Glasgow

  231

  194

  20

  20

  152

  144

  Lanark

  212

  178

  18

  16

  142

  128

  Renfrew

  107

  76

  28

  23

  95

  88

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1992

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  2,277

  1,622

  509

  464

  984

  880

  Borders

  75

  48

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Central

  113

  87

  46

  40

  41

  40

  Dumfries and Galloway

  113

  68

  23

  22

  12

  11

  Fife

  142

  98

  48

  45

  54

  47

  Grampian

  267

  172

  77

  73

  59

  47

  Highland

  194

  132

  26

  25

  21

  15

  Lothian

  236

  152

  63

  56

  146

  128

  Strathclyde

  872

  689

  153

  136

  564

  520

  Tayside

  183

  113

  58

  52

  56

  45

  Orkney

  20

  17

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shetland

  28

  19

  3

  3

  8

  6

  Western Isles

  34

  27

  1

  1

  11

  9

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  73

  53

  3

  2

  10

  9

  Ayr

  148

  99

  26

  24

  93

  88

  Dunbarton

  115

  101

  30

  26

  79

  74

  Glasgow

  223

  184

  31

  30

  158

  149

  Lanark

  207

  172

  27

  25

  129

  111

  Renfrew

  106

  80

  36

  29

  94

  88

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1987

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  414

  17

  424

  25

  1,050

  180

  Borders

  9

  0

  9

  0

  19

  3

  Central

  20

  0

  20

  1

  57

  9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  0

  17

  1

  33

  4

  Fife

  18

  0

  19

  1

  83

  17

  Grampian

  40

  3

  36

  1

  96

  18

  Highland

  26

  1

  25

  1

  42

  10

  Lothian

  47

  3

  51

  4

  145

  29

  Strathclyde

  186

  6

  194

  12

  489

  79

  Tayside

  28

  2

  30

  2

  75

  11

  Orkney

  6

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  Shetland

  7

  1

  7

  1

  3

  0

  Western Isles

  14

  1

  13

  1

  5

  1

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  9

  1

  9

  0

  14

  1

  Ayr

  31

  0

  29

  2

  80

  9

  Dunbarton

  24

  1

  25

  1

  69

  19

  Glasgow

  52

  2

  57

  3

  131

  23

  Lanark

  37

  2

  38

  1

  116

  16

  Renfrew

  33

  0

  36

  5

  79

  11

  594 595

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1988

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  413

  17

  417

  25

  1,028

  174

  Borders

  9

  0

  8

  0

  24

  3

  Central

  20

  0

  20

  1

  59

  8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  0

  16

  0

  33

  4

  Fife

  21

  0

  19

  1

  77

  17

  Grampian

  38

  3

  38

  2

  91

  16

  Highland

  24

  1

  26

  1

  38

  7

  Lothian

  50

  3

  50

  5

  146

  30

  Strathclyde

  179

  6

  189

  12

  471

  78

  Tayside

  30

  3

  30

  1

  74

  9

  Orkney

  6

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  Shetland

  7

  1

  8

  1

  4

  0

  Western Isles

  14

  1

  12

  1

  7

  2

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  8

  1

  9

  0

  14

  1

  Ayr

  29

  0

  30

  3

  75

  8

  Dunbarton

  23

  1

  26

  1

  69

  18

  Glasgow

  51

  2

  53

  2

  122

  23

  Lanark

  36

  2

  36

  1

  108

  17

  Renfrew

  32

  0

  35

  5

  83

  11

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1990

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  415

  11

  406

  31

  987

  187

  Borders

  9

  0

  9

  0

  24

  3

  Central

  19

  0

  19

  1

  49

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  0

  15

  1

  32

  4

  Fife

  19

  0

  20

  3

  73

  18

  Grampian

  38

  2

  37

  2

  85

  21

  Highland

  24

  1

  26

  2

  39

  4

  Lothian

  51

  2

  51

  4

  135

  31

  Strathclyde

  182

  4

  177

  14

  466

  89

  Tayside

  31

  2

  31

  1

  70

  12

  Orkney

  6

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  Shetland

  8

  0

  8

  1

  4

  0

  Western Isles

  13

  1

  13

  2

  6

  2

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  9

  1

  8

  2

  13

  1

  Ayr

  31

  1

  29

  0

  75

  10

  Dunbarton

  25

  0

  26

  1

  64

  18

  Glasgow

  50

  0

  46

  4

  126

  26

  Lanark

  38

  2

  35

  2

  104

  19

  Renfrew

  29

  0

  33

  5

  85

  15

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1992

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Scotland

  403

  12

  405

  37

  1,021

  225

  Borders

  9

  0

  9

  0

  26

  4

  Central

  18

  0

  18

  1

  49

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15

  0

  16

  0

  32

  4

  Fife

  19

  0

  20

  3

  73

  18

  Grampian

  38

  1

  38

  4

  95

  25

  Highland

  26

  1

  27

  1

  37

  6

  Lothian

  47

  1

  49

  4

  133

  30

  596 597

  Education authority primary schools total and female teacher numbers (full-time equivalents) at head, deputy head and assistant head teacher levels—September 1992

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Education authority

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Strathclyde

  172

  6

  176

  19

  479

  105

  Tayside

  30

  1

  31

  1

  81

  24

  Orkney

  6

  0

  2

  0

  5

  1

  Shetland

  8

  1

  8

  2

  4

  1

  Western Isles

  15

  1

  12

  2

  7

  2

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  9

  1

  9

  0

  20

  3

  Ayr

  29

  0

  27

  2

  80

  13

  Dunbarton

  24

  0

  25

  3

  70

  21

  Glasgow

  44

  2

  44

  4

  118

  29

  Lanark

  37

  3

  38

  3

  102

  18

  Renfrew

  29

  0

  34

  7

  89

  21

  Council Tax Valuations (Appeals)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against valuations for council tax have been lodged; how many appeals have been considered; how many appeals have been successful; and what is the average time taken to consider an appeal against valuation in each valuation area in Scotland. [16319]

  Number of proposals/appeals and their progress as at 31 December 19941

  Region

  Number of proposals/appeals lodged

  Number settled

  Number where list adjusted/appeal upheld

  Average2 time from date of lodgement to date of settlement Months

  Borders

  3,124

  2,943

  2,314

  10

  Central

  3,115

  2,751

  1,706

  9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,235

  3,213

  1,824

  7

  Fife

  6,735

  6,354

  3,634

  7

  Grampian

  11,741

  9,945

  6,023

  9

  Highland

  6,366

  5,286

  3,037

  8

  Lothian

  13,451

  12,569

  8,202

  10

  Strathclyde

  42,734

  35,780

  25,618

  5

  Tayside

  11,629

  7,095

  5,306

  9

  Orkney

  217

  216

  122

  3

  Shetland

  181

  176

  130

  3

  Western Isles

  929

  818

  424

  9

  Scotland

  103,457

  87,146

  53,340

  7

  Source:

  Information supplied by assessors in regular statistical returns.

  Notes:

  1 Analysis of all classes of proposal/appeal lodged with assessors, almost all of which will relate to appeals against banding. Separate statistics are not provided for each class of appeal.

  2 Average time from date of lodgement to date of settlement, of those proposals/appeals which have been settled.

  NHS Management Grading Structure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the management grading structure currently in operation in the national health. [16324]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: New arrangements for the grading of general and senior manager posts in the national health service in Scotland were introduced as from 1 September 1993. These arrangements apply to health boards and are commended to NHS trusts.
  598
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The table provides the available information, which relates to all classes of proposals to change the valuation list made to assessors and subsequent appeals. The table, which is taken from information supplied by assessors, shows the position at 31 December 1994 for all areas.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals were on the electoral register of each local authority area in Scotland for each year since 1987. [14541]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The information is set out in the following table. Data on the 1995 registers are not yet available centrally.
  599

  Total electors

  Area

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Scotland

  3,994,211

  3,967,334

  3,932,897

  3,936,737

  3,912,528

  3,927,475

  3,930,286

  3,946,264

  Borders

  81,963

  82,078

  82,268

  82,902

  83,346

  83,879

  84,405

  84,774

  Berwickshire

  15,020

  15,038

  15,041

  15,177

  15,261

  15,400

  15,631

  15,620

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  26,424

  26,549

  26,849

  27,096

  27,383

  27,534

  27,795

  27,972

  Roxburgh

  28,665

  28,601

  28,450

  28,505

  28,496

  28,598

  28,572

  28,625

  Tweeddale

  11,854

  11,890

  11,928

  12,124

  12,206

  12,347

  12,407

  12,557

  Central

  211,944

  211,190

  210,333

  210,588

  210,115

  211,171

  211,041

  211,434

  Clackmannan

  36,946

  36,588

  36,360

  36,461

  36,708

  36,794

  36,806

  37,006

  Falkirk

  110,951

  110,580

  110,416

  110,554

  110,180

  110,655

  110,576

  110,424

  Stirling

  64,047

  64,022

  63,557

  63,573

  63,227

  63,722

  63,659

  64,004

  Dumfries and Galloway

  113,970

  113,601

  113,449

  115,574

  116,055

  116,708

  116,914

  116,548

  Annandale and Eskdale

  28,475

  28,541

  28,599

  29,053

  29,253

  29,415

  29,571

  29,372

  Nithsdale

  43,755

  43,501

  43,358

  44,223

  44,222

  44,612

  44,532

  44,517

  Stewartry

  18,544

  18,536

  18,494

  18,712

  18,908

  18,981

  19,098

  19,073

  Wigtown

  23,196

  23,023

  22,998

  23,586

  23,672

  23,700

  23,713

  23,586

  Fife

  266,585

  265,105

  3,590

  264,366

  263,563

  264,601

  266,807

  271,160

  Dunfermline

  97,250

  96,468

  96,480

  96,498

  95,861

  96,147

  96,839

  98,179

  Kirkcaldy

  116,580

  116,150

  115,587

  114,959

  114,291

  114,249

  114,345

  116,036

  North East Fife

  52,755

  52,487

  52,355

  52,909

  53,411

  54,205

  55,623

  56,945

  Grampian

  391,115

  388,252

  385,170

  391,081

  390,279

  397,563

  401,700

  406,199

  Aberdeen City

  175,434

  171,205

  168,266

  169,336

  168,169

  170,075

  170,627

  172,043

  Banff and Buchan

  62,864

  63,054

  62,830

  64,249

  64,126

  65,621

  66,717

  67,571

  Gordon

  53,321

  53,982

  54,188

  56,124

  56,135

  57,976

  59,095

  60,027

  Kincardine and Deeside

  36,588

  36,808

  37,048

  38,064

  38,507

  39,959

  40,677

  41,435

  Moray

  62,908

  63,203

  62,838

  63,308

  63,342

  63,932

  64,584

  65,123

  Highland

  151,641

  149,963

  151,361

  152,806

  155,078

  157,393

  159,000

  160,950

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  8,378

  8,406

  8,411

  8,516

  8,941

  9,128

  9,348

  9,227

  Caithness

  20,765

  20,462

  20,564

  20,240

  20,611

  20,624

  20,645

  20,820

  Inverness

  45,409

  45,329

  45,976

  46,856

  47,211

  48,023

  48,552

  49,216

  Lochaber

  14,744

  14,392

  14,486

  14,610

  14,531

  14,809

  14,907

  15,071

  Nairn

  7,976

  7,931

  7,992

  7,988

  8,139

  8,370

  8,496

  8,582

  Ross and Cromarty

  34,776

  34,393

  34,871

  35,379

  36,170

  36,759

  37,361

  38,065

  Skye and Lochalsh

  8,842

  8,530

  8,591

  8,752

  8,972

  9,136

  9,224

  9,320

  Sutherland

  10,751

  10,520

  10,470

  10,465

  10,503

  10,544

  10,467

  10,649

  Lothian

  599,036

  598,561

  593,864

  597,136

  590,523

  590,780

  589,218

  592,093

  East Lothian

  65,559

  65,543

  66,112

  67,519

  67,193

  67,565

  67,530

  67,832

  Edinburgh City

  367,582

  366,102

  358,940

  359,122

  351,743

  350,930

  350,281

  351,748

  Midlothian

  61,128

  61,141

  61,092

  60,981

  60,836

  61,166

  60,959

  61,050

  West Lothian

  104,767

  105,775

  107,720

  109,514

  110,751

  111,119

  110,448

  111,463

  Strathclyde

  1,819,132

  1,801,468

  1,776,392

  1,767,109

  1,746,981

  1,745,127

  1,739,901

  1,741,190

  Argyll and Bute

  49,274

  48,923

  48,704

  48,637

  48,056

  48,428

  48,991

  49,345

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  31,853

  31,806

  31,570

  31,598

  31,508

  31,593

  31,588

  31,743

  Clydebank

  38,189

  37,539

  36,691

  35,985

  35,405

  35,234

  35,182

  35,392

  Clydesdale

  44,310

  44,406

  44,227

  44,172

  44,110

  44,374

  44,589

  44,807

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  46,136

  46,388

  46,341

  46,723

  46,869

  47,140

  47,415

  47,573

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  34,107

  33,869

  33,554

  33,543

  33,332

  33,243

  33,106

  33,049

  Cunninghame

  106,060

  105,980

  105,194

  105,478

  105,058

  105,195

  105,184

  105,597

  Dumbarton

  59,490

  59,352

  58,310

  58,041

  57,680

  57,855

  57,498

  57,592

  East Kilbride

  63,993

  63,954

  63,715

  64,206

  64,331

  64,799

  65,031

  65,352

  Eastwood

  44,203

  44,621

  45,399

  46,289

  46,377

  46,712

  46,644

  46,899

  Glasgow City

  573,009

  561,512

  547,594

  537,691

  524,481

  523,080

  518,308

  518,131

  Hamilton

  81,268

  81,364

  80,918

  81,347

  80,738

  80,638

  80,743

  81,151

  Inverclyde

  75,605

  74,480

  72,957

  72,283

  71,136

  70,742

  70,282

  69,462

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  63,437

  63,325

  62,834

  62,982

  62,491

  62,764

  62,632

  62,544

  Kyle and Carrick

  90,290

  89,902

  89,333

  89,267

  88,736

  89,018

  89,178

  89,487

  Monklands

  80,280

  79,784

  78,456

  78,717

  78,098

  77,693

  77,720

  77,191

  Motherwell

  111,377

  110,930

  109,675

  109,582

  109,266

  108,609

  108,276

  107,933

  Renfrew

  160,171

  157,482

  155,782

  155,771

  155,206

  153,772

  153,543

  153,913

  Strathkelvin

  66,080

  65,851

  65,138

  64,797

  64,103

  64,238

  63,991

  64,029

  Tayside

  303,808

  302,852

  301,424

  300,996

  302,177

  305,415

  306,135

  306,292

  Angus

  71,661

  71,510

  71,612

  72,036

  72,345

  73,367

  74,117

  74,854

  600 601

  Total electors

  Area

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Dundee City

  137,921

  136,960

  134,949

  133,725

  133,924

  134,799

  133,525

  132,188

  Perth and Kinross

  94,226

  94,382

  94,863

  95,235

  95,908

  97,249

  98,493

  99,250

  Orkney

  14,975

  14,960

  15,029

  15,142

  15,204

  15,404

  15,552

  15,555

  Shetland

  16,357

  16,219

  16,088

  15,953

  16,139

  16,424

  16,493

  16,753

  Western Isles

  23,685

  23,085

  23,097

  23,084

  23,068

  23,010

  23,120

  23,316

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much revenue his Department has raised from payment for national health service prescriptions for each financial year since 1968(a) in total and (b) in each health board area. [14543]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: The information requested, which is

  £

  Health board

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Argyll and Clyde

  253,495

  384,553

  710,375

  912,138

  1,061,996

  1,140,655

  1,248,761

  1,367,266

  Ayrshire and Arran

  229,680

  372,980

  611,728

  884,519

  945,886

  1,012,273

  1,092,777

  1,222,220

  Borders

  50,976

  82,995

  160,373

  199,830

  239,355

  261,077

  293,543

  343,694

  Dumfries and Galloway

  75,606

  125,434

  210,020

  289,827

  346,765

  381,207

  412,283

  469,511

  Fife

  192,135

  302,176

  507,722

  703,629

  819,691

  895,391

  969,976

  1,091,333

  Forth Valley

  156,147

  240,709

  447,119

  575,067

  671,486

  737,966

  800,850

  887,644

  Grampian

  243,511

  405,785

  767,762

  993,264

  1,217,667

  1,331,868

  1,515,858

  1,761,953

  Greater Glasgow

  569,490

  827,176

  1,512,904

  1,871,278

  2,104,653

  2,263,993

  2,403,376

  2,544,619

  Highland

  93,039

  152,733

  287,663

  367,900

  430,711

  473,272

  508,331

  567,855

  Lanarkshire

  340,890

  513,804

  943,964

  1,204,771

  1,382,484

  1,491,495

  1,623,988

  1,775,441

  Lothian

  342,405

  598,195

  1,004,091

  1,388,292

  1,628,506

  1,771,330

  1,923,164

  2,165,150

  Orkney

  9,030

  14,113

  26,139

  34,558

  42,707

  44,157

  49,924

  78,156

  Shetland

  11,135

  22,933

  46,290

  51,351

  53,750

  53,303

  59,549

  70,211

  Tayside

  196,643

  322,775

  600,078

  743,446

  894,191

  960,155

  1,069,281

  1,209,421

  Western Isles

  10,561

  18,437

  32,287

  347,855

  51,258

  55,486

  62,683

  69,478

  Total

  2,774,743

  4,384,789

  7,868,515

  10,267,725

  11,891,106

  12,873,628

  14,034,344

  15,623,952

  £

  Health board

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,686,047

  1,559,865

  1,801,196

  1,864,601

  1,976,974

  2,191,217

  2,362,746

  2,553,453

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,399,374

  1,498,208

  1,537,218

  1,698,499

  1,834,772

  1,989,472

  2,141,099

  2,375,010

  Borders

  399,503

  410,304

  474,894

  496,887

  534,811

  596,394

  669,390

  752,834

  Dumfries and Galloway

  597,128

  577,792

  670,903

  703,861

  756,737

  856,385

  943,044

  1,064,693

  Fife

  1,413,629

  1,262,129

  1,372,150

  1,533,802

  1,639,310

  1,851,376

  2,006,133

  2,085,955

  Forth Valley

  1,111,409

  1,047,005

  1,196,049

  1,246,609

  1,342,106

  1,509,718

  1,624,407

  1,868,042

  Grampian

  2,025,171

  2,249,322

  2,233,299

  2,467,763

  2,691,248

  3,044,950

  3,424,948

  3,772,414

  Greater Glasgow

  3,064,898

  2,765,545

  2,962,109

  3,134,470

  3,274,768

  3,521,660

  3,728,157

  3,984,581

  Highland

  694,861

  634,423

  788,072

  845,898

  943,125

  1,075,565

  1,177,872

  1,279,493

  Lanarkshire

  2,133,117

  1,988,051

  2,166,055

  2,387,645

  2,475,710

  2,728,958

  2,932,888

  3,220,526

  Lothian

  2,725,794

  2,566,582

  2,789,551

  3,302,626

  3,338,395

  3,694,434

  4,039,914

  4,534,870

  Orkney

  89,461

  85,812

  95,512

  100,388

  119,264

  136,354

  259,837

  188,254

  Shetland

  85,335

  86,971

  93,694

  99,316

  123,642

  126,551

  138,170

  157,075

  Tayside

  1,500,871

  1,433,136

  1,557,736

  1,721,211

  1,883,434

  2,083,760

  2,307,325

  2,541,305

  Western Isles

  77,078

  88,235

  80,494

  87,552

  97,826

  101,328

  116,826

  136,040

  Total

  19,003,676

  18,253,380

  19,818,932

  21,691,128

  23,032,122

  25,508,122

  27,872,756

  30,514,545

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Definitions
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to clear up the
  602
  available only from the financial year 1978–79, is set out in the tables. The amounts of revenue shown include:

  (i) NHS prescription charges paid by patients in respect of drugs and appliances dispensed by pharmacists, dispensing doctors and appliance suppliers;

  (ii) the sums collected in respect of the sale of prepayment certificates, and;

  (iii) NHS prescription charges recovered from patients under health board post-dispensing checking arrangements.

  ambiguities in the statutory terms "dwelling house", "building" and "house in multiple occupation" and the two statutory definitions of an HMO which are referred in paragraph 18 of the Department of the Environment's publication, "Monitoring the New Housing Fitness Standard", reference 95/2/140ES. [15353]
  603
  Mr. Curry
  The definitions referred to are being considered in the context of the current review of the house renovation grant system and the Government's consideration of the case for licensing HMOs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will send the letter he undertook to write in the debate on 17 February,Official Report, column 1311.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 23 March.

  Town and Country Planning (Costs of Enquiries) Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received on the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Enquiries) Bill; what was the length of the consultation period for the Bill; if he will list the organisations that have responded and the nature of the response; and what action he is taking as a result of the consultation. [16174]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My letter of 23 January to the hon. Member explained that my Department's officials were inviting comments from officers of the English local authority associations on the provisions of the Bill. By the time limit of 24 February, comments had been received from the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of London Authorities and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The comments are being considered.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has revised the carbon dioxide savings target he set for the Energy Saving Trust in the climate change programme; [15893]

  (2) what representations the Energy Saving Trust has made to him regarding the carbon dioxide savings they expect to deliver by 2000; [15894]

  (3) what meetings he has held with the Energy Saving trust to discuss the carbon dioxide savings they are expected to deliver by 2000; and if he will make a statement. [15895]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department has held several meetings with the Energy Saving Trust recently and has received a number of representations. The trust is currently reviewing its plans. It estimates that the programme of activities already established and financed will save about 0.3 million tonnes of carbon in the year 2000. Further schemes will make additional contributions, but they are not yet established.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the scientific studies funded by his Department which link United kingdom coastal erosion with chemical contamination of Danish beaches. [15938]

  Mr. Atkins
  No studies funded by the Department show any link between United Kingdom coastal erosion 604
  and contamination of Danish beaches. German, Dutch and Danish coastal waters receive large inputs from the major continental rivers such as the Rhine and the Elbe. Danish agriculture is a substantial source of nutrients in their waters. Inputs are kept close to the coast by poor mixing with waters well out to sea, leading to problems such as eutrophication.

  The 1989 "North Sea Satellite Colour Atlas", published with data and financial contributions from the Department and the Natural Environment Research Council, showed a natural plume of sediment material from the Norfolk coast. The poor mixing of continental waters with those offshore prevents material from the UK reaching Danish coastal waters; there is, therefore, no link between this material and problems in Danish waters.

  Asbestos
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory obligations are imposed on owners of land which the Health and Safety Executive has identified as a major asbestos contamination zone; and if he will make a statement. [15972]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the operation of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. The regulations place duties on employers in respect of their employees when working with asbestos. Employers also have duties in relation to other persons who might be affected by such work.

  Contamination with asbestos could come within the definitions of statutory nuisances under the terms of section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if, in any individual circumstances it is prejudicial to health or a nuisance. Under section 80 of that Act, the owner or occupier of premises could be served with an abatement notice requiring the execution of such works as may be necessary to deal with the asbestos contamination, either where he is himself responsible for the nuisance, or where the person responsible cannot be found.

  The Environment Bill, which received its First Reading in this House on 21 March 1995, introduces a specific definition of contaminated land and regulatory machinery for dealing with it, to replace the use of the more general definitions and procedures relating to statutory nuisances. Under these provisions, local authorities will serve remediation notices requiring steps by way of assessment, remedial works or monitoring when they identify contaminated land. In line with the "polluter pays" principle, the primary responsibility for dealing with any contamination will rest with the person who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination to be present. However, responsibility will pass to the owner or occupier of the land, either where no such person can be found or where his responsibilities have been transferred through contractual means.

  Odour Emissions
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce on-the-spot fines for local authorities to apply to those responsible for smell nuisances to residential areas from industrial and farming sources; and if he will make a statement. [16127]

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Many industrial processes are regulated under part I of the Environmental Protection Act
  605
  1990, which provides for controls over odour emissions among other types of pollution. Controls also exist under part III of the Act to deal with complaints of possible statutory nuisances, which includes smells arising on industrial, trade or business premises and those premises being in a state which is prejudicial to health or constitutes a nuisance.

  Enclosure Acts
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the Enclosure Acts; and if he will make a statement. [16171]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have no plans to review the Enclosure Acts.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has undertaken on the economic and employment impacts of North sea pollution on(a) fisheries and (b) tourism. [15937]

  Mr. Atkins
  No studies of economic and employment impacts of North sea pollution have been undertaken by the Department. The priority for the Department's marine research programme is to provide a scientific basis for measures to control pollution. It is implicit within this that high standards of water quality can only be of benefit to economic and tourism prospects.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has evaluated that discharged substances are dispersed once they reach the coastal waters of the United Kingdom. [15939]

  Mr. Atkins
  A range of studies, the latest of which is quoted in the 1993 "North Sea Quality Status Report"—page 102—have shown that physical, chemical and biological mechanisms in North sea waters lead to widespread dispersal of substances, subject to the mixing characteristics of different regions. A copy of the quality status report is in the Library of the House.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to place a statutory requirement on highway authorities to consult persons whose property rights may be directly or indirectly affected by proposals affecting rights of way; and if he will make it his policy to require such consultations to be completed before the implementation of any such proposals. [15891]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no such proposals. Consultations, other then those statutorily required, are at the discretion of the order-making authority.

  However, Rights of way Review Committee, practice guidance note no. 1, on consultation over changes to rights of way, recommends authorities to consult landowners affected by a proposal, including owners and occupies other than those across whose land the right of way in question runs or will run. This is helpful advice.

  "Using Water Wisely"
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received and 606
  from what sources, in respect of the Government's consultation paper "Using Water Wisely". [16577]

  Mr. Atkins
  The responses received in respect of the consultation paper "Using Water Wisely" are shown in the table.

  Source

  Number

  Water companies1

  10

  Professional and Trade Associations

  30

  Local Authorities (including local authority associations)

  150

  Consumer Groups

  5

  Environmental Groups

  21

  Water Industry Companies and Consultants

  29

  Government Departments, Agencies Etc

  12

  Other Organisations and individuals

  90

  Total responses

  347

  1 The Water Services Association and Water Companies Association submitted a joint response on behalf of all water service and water only companies. In addition nine water service companies submitted separate responses.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the responses to the paper, "Using Water Wisely", supported the proposal to give water companies mandatory targets for reducing leakage. [16552]

  Mr. Atkins
  Of the 347 responses received 126 were in favour of the proposal to give water companies mandatory targets for reducing leakage.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish his response to the consultation process prompted by the publication of "Using Water Wisely". [16551]

  Mr. Atkins
  We expect to publish the response to the consultation process later this year.

  Water Rating
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes to the system of water rating his Department is considering under the Government's review of charging policy. [16424]

  Mr. Atkins
  The outcome of the Government's deliberations will be made known in due course.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for approving applications to develop opencast mining in Oxfordshire. [16241]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Mineral Planning Authority, Oxfordshire county council are responsible for determining applications to develop opencast mining in Oxfordshire.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment what facilities are provided and
  607
  arrangements made for the comfort and well-being of staff who (a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at 2 Marsham street, London. [16567]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Smoking is prohibited in lifts, toilets, conference rooms, designated restaurant and refreshment areas, some rest rooms and in areas where there are health and safety implications. Staff may decide among themselves to ban smoking in their own or shared offices and in recreation areas. Staff are discouraged from smoking in other common areas.

  Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the 1995–96 charging schemes for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. [17203]

  Mr. Atkins
  Charges to cover the costs of regulating processes under integrated pollution control and Premises Subject to Radioactive Substances Act 1993 Regulations were introduced in 1991 under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Act requires Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to balance costs and income, taking one financial year with another.

  With the agreement of the Treasury, and following consultation with industry and other bodies, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have now made revised IPC and RSA93 charging schemes, specifying the revised scales of fees and charges which will take effect from 1 April 1995.

  Most charges are held at their 1994–95 levels, the exceptions being the IPC subsistence charge which is increased by 4.7 per cent. to £1,805 per component, to contribute to additional regulatory activity of around 10 per cent. needed to implement the check monitoring programme, and an increase in the RSA93 band 3 subsistence charge of 12 per cent. to £1,115, to accommodate a request from some operators who sought and were granted a compensatory reduction of 50 per cent. to £710 in some variation fees.

  The rate per inspector day will be £924, a reduction of 5.1 per cent. in the rate for 1994–95, but offset in calculating the charges by a change in the method of accounting for inspector's travelling time.

  Full details are included in the revised schemes, copies of which I have placed in the Library.

  Copies of the schemes will shortly be sent to relevant operators and to other interested bodies.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the annual report for 1994 on compulsory competitive tendering in local authorities. [17202]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has published today the "CCT and Local Government in England Annual Report" for 1994. It describes the achievements of 1994, both on the work extending CCT to new services and in promoting and enforcing fair competition for the 608
  existing services. The report also describes two major research studies which have been published in the last year.

  Copies of the report will be sent to all local authorities in England, and to the main trade associations and others involved with CCT. Copies have also been placed in the House Library.

  During the last year CCT has been extended to further manual services, as well as to certain local authority professional services. Housing management, legal services, construction and property services, on-street parking, vehicle fleet management and security services have been added to the statute. These followed extensive consultation with the local authority associations, and representatives from the professional and trade organisations.

  My Department had to investigate over 100 allegations that local authorities had acted anti-competitively when tendering services. The majority were resolved without statutory action, but in nine cases directions were given; most required the local authority to re-tender the work. My right hon. Friend also gave 39 directions where activities had failed to meet the specified financial objective; four of these prevented the local authority from carrying out the work in-house.

  Outstanding Arrears
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list, by local authority, the total amounts outstanding in arrears of(a) domestic rates, (b) community charge and (c) council tax; [16875]

  (2) what is the total amount of outstanding arrears for all local authorities of (a) domestic rates, (b) community charge and (c) council tax. [16876]

  Mr. Gummer
  Estimates of uncollected community charge and council tax for each local authority are published regularly by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; figures for 31 March 1994 are available in its revenue collection statistics 1993–94 publication, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The outstanding arrears of council tax in England as at 31 March 1994 were estimated to be £580 million, of which £226 million had been collected by December 1994. The outstanding arrears of community charge in England as at 31 March 1994 were estimated to be £1,700 million, of which £217 million had been collected by December 1994. No data are yet available centrally on the sums of either council tax or community charge written off between April and December 1994.

  Information on arrears of domestic rates is not published by CIPFA and is not available centrally.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of 16 to 17-year-olds attained qualifications equivalent to NVQ level 3 in each of the last five years(a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands. [15821]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  609

  Proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds attaining qualifications equivalent to NVQ levels 2 and 3 (per cent.)

  NVQ level 2

  NVQ level 3

  Spring

  United Kingdom

  West Midlands

  United Kingdom

  West Midlands

  1990

  31.6

  26.8

  3.8

  1—

  1991

  32.2

  28.7

  4.0

  1—

  1992

  32.7

  30.1

  3.8

  1—

  1993

  35.4

  34.8

  2.5

  1—

  1994

  38.5

  31.1

  2.1

  1—

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Note:

  1 — Indicates fewer than 10,000 respondents in the cell.

  Progress towards foundation target 3 of the national targets for education and training

  Proportion of young people gaining NVQ level 3 or equivalent by the age of 211

  Spring

  United Kingdom

  West Midlands

  1990

  30.2

  27.8

  1991

  30.2

  25.1

  1992

  34.0

  30.6

  1993

  36.9

  35.4

  1994

  39.4

  37.9

  Source:

  LFS

  Note:

  1 The proportion of 21 to 23-year-olds is used as a proxy for achievement at 21. The sample size of a single year's data in the LFS does not allow the achievement of 21-year-olds to be measured accurately.

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has, following the decision to put out to tender the services provided by the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service, that those not currently employed by the service will have greater knowledge and skills and perform in a superior manner to those currently employed in that service. [15863]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The market test of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service will explore how the service can best be delivered. In considering bids, the Department will consider most carefully which organisation is best placed to maintain the nature and quality of the service. The assessment of suppliers will cover their financial standing, experience in providing similar services and experience of staff and quality systems and methods. At this stage it is too early to speculate on the outcome of the market test.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the expected savings from the market testing of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service; over what period savings will be costed; and when he expects savings to be first identifiable. [16128]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government's policy, which is set out in the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", is to provide high quality public service in the most cost 610
  effective way. The Race Relations Employment Advisory Service was assessed as meeting the criteria for market testing. At this stage it is too early to speculate on the outcome of the market test, including details of any savings that may be made. Tenders will be evaluated over a 10-year period.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assurances he can give on the maintenance of the quality and quantity of the service provided by the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service. [16129]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Ministers have given an undertaking that the nature and quality of the service will be maintained following market testing. The precise requirements for the service, including activity levels and quality criteria, will be determined during the process. Whatever the outcome of the market test, the Department will continue to monitor performance to ensure that employers receive sound advice on the development of racial equality policies.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what was the cost of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service in 1993–94; and what is the expected cost for 1994–95 and 1995–96. [16420]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In 1993–94, the cost of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service was £0.9 million. The cost for each of the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 is expected to be £1 million.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will commence the market testing of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service.
  [16418]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The process of market testing the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service began in November 1994. An invitation to potential suppliers to express an interest in providing the service was published on 23 February 1995.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many companies, voluntary groups or employee groups have expressed an interest in the market testing of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service. [16421]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  So far, expressions of interest have been received from 18 organisations.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what criteria will have to be met by those who tender for the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service. [16419]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Department's requirement is for a national service under a single contract—or a prime contractor, if a consortium—with a clear specification of the types of services and standards required. Potential suppliers will be shortlisted on the information requested by the Department in response to expressions of interest. In broad terms, this will cover financial standing, experience in providing similar services, experience of staff and quality systems and methods. Evaluation criteria for bids are being drawn up in parallel with the statement of service requirements. Further information will be provided to shortlisted suppliers at the invitation to tender stage.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish the report commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive from the institute of occupational health at Birmingham university on the effect of organo-phosphorous chemicals in sheep dip on 200 sheep farmers. [16061]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my noble Friend Lord Inglewood on 20 March 1995,Official Report, House of Lords, column 1014.

  Remploy
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the special contracts arrangements in assisting disabled Remploy workers. [16059]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 15 March 1995,Official Report, column. 624.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's proposed additional expenditure to help people coming off incapacity benefits in each of the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98; on what items it is to be spent; and how many people it is estimated will be helped in each of those years. [16115]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 28 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about proposed additional expenditure to help people coming off Incapacity Benefit (IB).
  We are keen to ensure that people no longer entitled to IB who make a claim for unemployment benefit are given effective help with returning to work. We therefore intend to provide a comprehensive package of additional help for them.
  Clients coming off IB will be eligible for immediate entry to a number of our programmes. As a result a number of additional places in Jobplan Workshop (JPW), and Jobclub/Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) scheme are being funded, details of which are as follows.

  Year

  Clients

  Programme

  Cost

  1995 to 1996

  86,000

  JPW

  £9,630,000

  70,000

  Jobclub/JIG

  £13,230,000

  1996 to 1997

  66,700

  JPW

  £7,837,000

  58,000

  Jobplan/JIG

  £11,063,000

  1997 to 1998

  15,400

  JPW

  £1,900,000

  14,000

  Jobplan/JIG

  £2,683,000

  Those people who are identified at an initial interview as needing specialist help will be referred to Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams, the number of clients and additional costs for which are estimated as follows.
  612

  Year

  Clients

  Cost £

  1995 to 1996

  40,000

  11,840,000

  1996 to 1997

  29,000

  8,787,000

  1997 to 1998

  15,000

  3,266,000

  All new clients who were previously claiming IB will be given, like all new clients, a full advisory interview when they make their claim for unemployment benefit. This interview will provide the opportunity for a full discussion of the client's job goals and of the most appropriate means for achieving this.

  I hope this information is helpful and assures you of our intent to provide clients who were previously claiming IB with practical advice and information which is geared to their individual needs.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the details of the financial assistance available to job clubs in the Durham North district to assist them in the provision of services for people with disabilities; and what were the amounts spent during the last financial year. [15997]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 28 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about financial assistance available to Jobclubs in the Durham North District to assist people with disabilities.
  The cost of Jobclub provision in Durham North District between April 1994 and February was £161,940. Separate records on the cost of providing facilities for people with disabilities are not maintained.
  There are seven Jobclubs within the Durham North District, none of which are specifically for any particular client group. People with disabilities are encouraged to use the standard provision and where necessary specialist help, for example communicators for the deaf and personal readers or specialist equipment is available via our Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTs).
  During the period April 1994 to February, 111 people, who have indicated that they have a long term health problem or disability which affects the kind of work they are able to do, have attended Jobclubs in the Durham North District. None of these clients required extra assistance from the PACT to enable them to utilise facilities in the Jobclubs.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Lucas Gardner Site (Asbestos)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what grounds the Health and Safety Executive has ordered cessation of work at the former Lucas Gardner site at Bath road, Bristol; and if he will make a statement. [15971]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive visited the former Lucas Gardner site at Bath road, Bristol in December 1994 where demolition work was in progress. They suspected that roofing sheets and pipe lagging contained asbestos. The manner of demolition was such that if asbestos were present it was not being properly removed or controlled to minimise the spread of asbestos fibres. A prohibition notice was served on the contractor preventing further demolition work until a safe system of work had been prepared and appropriate precautions taken.
  613
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what types of asbestos have been found on the premises at the former Lucas Gardner site at Bath road, Bristol. [15969]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Samples taken from the former Lucas Gardner site and analysed by the Health and Safety Executive were found to contain crysotile (white), crocidolite (blue) and amosite (brown) asbestos.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people he estimates will lose their social security entitlement as a consequence of his reduction of the number of weekly hours which students can commit to their studies without losing benefit eligibility. [15944]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's proposals are designed to allow the same number of people to study while claiming benefits for the unemployed after the introduction of jobseeker's allowance as do so now. The new rules will not come into force until April 1996. The detail of the transitional arrangements for JSA and other social security benefits is still being considered. I explained to the Jobseeekrs Bill Committee on 14 February 1995 at column 374, however, that our intention is that no one who is currently on a course will have to give it up because of the change that we are proposing.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16280]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There was no expenditure by the Employment Department Group or contracts with the private sector for public relations activities during the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16208]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Central guidance on publicity and the use of public relations consultants has been produced by the Cabinet Office for Government Departments. The Employment Department Group and its agencies have been issued with that guidance which stipulates the stated policy of successive administrations to rely on the expertise and experience of the Government's own advisers and to decline offers from commercial public relations companies.

  Training Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money he has made available for(a) modern apprenticeships and (b) youth training in 1995–96. [16272]

  Mr. Paice
  We are making £669 million available for modern apprenticeships and youth training in England in 1995–96. Modern apprenticeships are part of the youth programme budget and it is not possible to distinguish 614
  elements for youth training from those for modern apprenticeships.

  Caxton House (Smoking)
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the comfort and well-being of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at Caxton house, Tothill street, London. [16566]

  Miss Widdecombe
  All refurbished offices and other areas are designated non-smoking areas. There are four rooms on the refurbished floors for staff who wish to smoke. In unrefurbished areas, people may smoke only if all staff in the area consent. The staff restaurant, staff tea point areas and all common areas are designated non-smoking areas.

  Careers Service Contracts
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Careers Service contracts awarded to private sector companies are identical to those awarded to TEC/LEA partnerships other than in respect of volumes and other volume-related details. [16262]

  Mr. Paice
  Yes.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of producing and circulating the last departmental annual report what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price. [16650]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A total of 3,550 copies of the Department's 1995 departmental report, Cm 2805, were printed and published. In addition to the copies presented to Parliament and placed in the Library, the report was also circulated to the Employment Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the media and internally within the Department. The costs of printing and publishing the report were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which aims to recover the costs from sales revenue. The Department met the design costs of the report, which were £35,600. The cover price of the report is £14.60. A total of 2,134 copies of the report have been sold since its publication on 10 March 1995.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of producing and circulating the departmental annual report for each of the last 10 years in real terms. [16651]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Departmental reports were published for the first time in 1991. Printing and publishing costs of the reports have been borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which has sought to recover these costs from sales revenue. The Department is responsible for the design costs of the report. Data for the five years of publication are as follows:

  1991:—£12.780

  1992:—£12,540

  1993:—£13,450

  1994:—£21,600

  1995:—£35,600

  The increased costs for the 1994 and 1995 reports reflect decisions to improve the range, quality and

  615
  presentation of informaiton provided to both Parliament and the public.

  Environmental Improvement
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to increase the number of people involved in types of employment that enhance the environment. [16295]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government do not seek to influence the number of people employed in specific parts of the economy. Our role is to promote the right framework in which businesses can create jobs. If there is a demand for more jobs that enhance the environment, employment in that sector will increase. The Government's commitment to sustainable development encourages economic development that is compatible with environmental protection and enhancement.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16559]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is given in the following list:

  1979–80: Not available

  1994–95: 14.5

  The Department's press office was merged with the Training Agency press office in November 1989. Staffing figures reflect this.

  Client Advisers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the duties and job objectives of the client advisers appointed by his Department to liaise with claimants of unemployment benefit or other benefits granted as a consequence of unemployment; and whether these objectives include facilitating clients to find work or a place on a training scheme. [16726]

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

  Letter front M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 28 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the duties and objectives of Employment Service (ES) client advisers.
  Employment Service (ES) client advisers have two main objectives: to help people into work as soon as possible by providing them with practical advice and information about jobs, training and other opportunities that are available; and to make sure people claiming benefit understand and comply with the conditions under which it is paid. These are that people are available for, capable of and actively seeking work.
  To fulfil these objectives all my offices offer our unemployed clients a structured and coherent information and advisory service which is based on regular interviews with an adviser. At these interviews clients are able to discuss their situation, the steps they are taking to find work and the employment and training opportunities which are available. The aim of each interview is to assess the client's situation, determine their needs and agree an appropriate course of action which, if taken, will offer the client the best chance of success in their search for work.
  As part of this, our advisers liaise closely with employers, providers of employment, training and other opportunities, to
  616
  maintain their knowledge of the jobs market and make sure clients have access to as wider range of opportunities as possible. They are also able to give clients advice and information on other benefits, including benefits available to people in work.
  I hope this is helpful and assures you of our intent to provide our clients with as much practical help as possible to support their search for work.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 27 March. [17183]

  Mr. Portillo
  I attended the Social Affairs Council on 27 March in Brussels. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The principal items on the agenda were the draft directive on posted workers, a draft decision on the programme to combat social exclusion, draft resolutions on the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making and on implementation of community social legislation, a Presidency memorandum on the social dimension of international trade and discussion of follow-up to the discussion of employment issues at the Essen European Council on 9 and 10 December 1994.

  Discussion of the draft directive on posted workers was once again inconclusive. The UK has considerable and long-standing difficulties of both principle and detail. A number of other member states also had significant difficulties with various aspects of the proposal, which the Presidency referred back to COREPER for further work.

  There was, in the event, no discussion of the social exclusion programme. The resolutions on the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making and on the implementation of directives in the social field were unanimously agreed with little discussion.

  There was a tour de table on the Presidency memorandum on the social dimension of international trade. I said that the UK was strongly opposed to child and forced labour and that developing countries needed help and encouragement to eliminate such practices. I emphasised the importance of free trade in promoting both economic and social development in the third world and that trade sanctions would hold back rather than encourage social progress. No Council conclusions were reached, though the Presidency drew some conclusions of its own.

  There was a discussion of the role of the Social Affairs Council in the follow-up to the conclusions of the Essen European Council on employment. The Commission reported briefly on progress on establishing the European Health and Safety Agency and on action it was taking under the social protocol.

  Lindane
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions are to be given to workers who use or spray Lindane—Gamma HCH or Gamma BHC—as part of their employment. [15499]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Work with Lindane—the common name for Gamma HCH, also known as Gamma BHC—is covered by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994. COSHH requires employers to inform, instruct and train their employees about: the nature of the substances

  617
  they work with, the risks created by exposure to those substances, and the precautions to be taken. When used as a pesticide, lindane is also subject to the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. COPR requires that pesticides are approved by Ministers. Conditions of approval and instructions for use appear on the product labels.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence has been supplied by the London Hazards Centre to the Government about health problems and hazards to the development and functions of vital organs possibly caused by the use of Lindane—Gamma HCH or Gamma BHC; and if he will make a statement. [15492]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The Government are not aware of any such evidence supplied by the London Hazards Centre. The Government's armoury of controls for chemicals, including Lindane, provide adequate safeguards to protect the health of users and people who might be affected by their use.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15578]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The Department and its Ministers pursue objectives which fully reflect the need to minimise regulatory and administrative burdens on business. There is also a Minister with particular responsibility for promoting deregulation within the Department.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of employees in employment covered by the Agricultural Wages Board, using micro data from the Quarterly Labour Force Survey, for all quarters from spring 1992 to the last quarter. [16104]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: All employees in agriculture and horticulture are covered by the Agricultural Wages Board. The table gives information from the Labour Force Survey for the number of employees in agriculture for all quarters from spring 1992.

  Number of employees in agriculture and horticulture in the United Kingdom between spring 1992 and autumn 1994, Great Britain— not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  SIC 80

  Spring 1992

  216

  Summer 1992

  211

  Autumn 1992

  210

  Winter 1992–93

  184

  Spring 1993

  196

  Summer 1993

  212

  Autumn 1993

  216

  618

  Number of employees in agriculture and horticulture in the United Kingdom between spring 1992 and autumn 1994, Great Britain— not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  SIC 92

  Winter 1993–94

  195

  Spring 1994

  199

  Summer 1994

  213

  Autumn 1994

  196

  Note:

  The figures above the line are not strictly comparable with those below the line following the change in the standard industrial classification in winter 1993–94.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Butter
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what price British wholesalers buy butter per 250g pack; at what price the European Community sells butter per 250g pack on the world market; what are the levels of European Community production and consumption of butter; what is the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on butter subsidies; and what is the annual cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the butter market. [16134]

  Mr. Jack
  The first-hand delivered price of butter in the United Kingdom is between 68p to 82.5p per 250g pack. The price of butter on the world market fluctuates and is currently in a range $2,000 to $2,430 per tonne.

  Estimates of production and consumption of butter in the European Community are given in "Agriculture Situation in the Community, 1993 Report".

  CAP expenditure in 1994 on internal butter disposal subsidies was 669.4 million ecu=£517.1 using the average 1994 conversion rate of 1 ecu=£0.77249 million.

  Details of the Exchequer cost of CAP support in the UK for butter can be found in section I of table 9.1 of "Agriculture in the UK". The UK also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of the CAP support in other member states.

  Copies of the publications mentioned have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have had their monthly milk cheques withheld by Milk Marque because of administration problems at the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. [15940]

  Mr. Jack
  Purchasers do not inform the intervention board of payments they are withholding for milk deliveries. This is a matter between the purchaser and the producer. The intervention board has provided Milk Marque, and all other milk purchasers, on a weekly basis with all changes in the quota registered with it confirmed in the previous week. The intervention board is always ready to assist if the processing of any quota movement had been delayed for any reason.

  Farm Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost to the United Kingdom per acre farmed in the European Community. [16136]

  Mr. Jack
  A note on "The Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to Consumers and Taxpayers" was placed in the Library of the House on 9 March 1995. Information on the area farmed in the European Community is given in "Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1993 Report", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate by how much the average food bill of the average family of four is altered as a direct result of the common agricultural policy, giving figures separately for(a) dairy products, (b) sugar, (c) beef, (d) cereals, (e) rice, (f) fruit and vegetables, (g) potatoes, (h) oilseeds, (i) linseed, (j) olive oil, (k) wine and (l) tobacco. [16154]

  Mr. Jack
  A note on "The Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to Consumers and Taxpayers" was placed in the Library of the House on 9 March 1995. Separate figures are not available by commodity, but some information for the European Community as a whole is given in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "Agricultural Policies' Markets and Trade, Monitoring and Outlook 1994" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will estimate the cost of the common agricultural policy to each household in the United Kingdom, breaking this figure down into(a) the running costs of the common agricultural policy and (b) the amount which the policy adds to food prices; [16150]

  (2) if he will estimate the combined cost of the common agricultural policy and other national farm aids to the United Kingdom; and if he will break down this figure into (a) payments directly or indirectly received by farmers and (b) the cost to consumers in the form of higher food prices. [16151]

  Mr. Jack
  A note on "The Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to Consumers and Taxpayers" was placed in the Library of the House on 9 March 1995.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price at which British wholesalers buy(a) linseed, (b) tobacco, (c) cereals, (d) oilseeds, (e) milk and (f) beef per tonne; what he estimates the price of each commodity would be in a free market without European Community price intervention; what are the levels of European Community production and consumption of each commodity; what is the level of common agricultural policy on expenditure on subsidies to each commodity; and what is the cost to the British Exchequer of European Commodity intervention in the market in each community. [16153]

  Mr. Jack
  Prices received by producers for agricultural commodities are reported to Eurostat, and consistent series for cereals, oilseeds, milk and beef appear in the publication "Agricultural Prices". No representative price series is available for linseed or tobacco.
  620
  It is not possible to estimate what the price of each commodity would be in the free market without European Community intervention without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions.

  Estimates of production and consumption in the European Community for each commodity are given in the "Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1993 Report".

  The 1994 budget outturn estimates of common agricultural policy expenditure on these commodities are as follows:

  mecu

  £ million

  Cereals (Market support)

  2,087

  1,612

  Arable area payments:

  Cereals

  5,540

  4,280

  Linseed

  125

  97

  Oilseeds

  2,549

  1,969

  Tobacco

  1,057

  816

  Milk

  4,249

  3,282

  Beef

  3,467

  2,678

  Details of the Exchequer cost of CAP support in the UK for these commodities, except tobacco, for which there is no expenditure in the UK, can be found in section I of table 9.1 of "Agriculture in the UK". The UK also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of the CAP support in other member states.

  Copies of the publications referred to are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate by how much common agricultural prices have risen in weak currency countries as a direct result of the system of pegging farm prices to the deutschmark via the switchover system for each country. [16137]

  Mr. Jack
  As support prices are set by the Council of Ministers in the annual price-fixing negotiations, it is not possible to say what prices would have been set had the switchover system not existed.

  The switchover mechanism was abolished on 1 February 1995. This did not result in any change in the level of CAP support prices in national currency terms. However, there will be no further increases as a result of this mechanism.

  Sugar
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what price British wholesalers buy sugar per kilogramme; at what price the European Community sells sugar per kilogramme on the world market; what are the levels of European Community production and consumption of sugar; what is the level of the common agricultural policy expenditure on sugar subsidies; what is the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the sugar market. [16132]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on actual prices paid for bulk white sugar is not available. However, prices are likely to be in the range of the effective support price provided by the sugar regime and producers "list" prices—between about 57p per kilogramme and 68p per kilogramme.
  621
  Export refunds enable Community bulk white sugar to be sold at the world price, which is currently around 25p per kilogramme, free on board.

  Estimates of production and consumption of sugar in the European Community are given in the "Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1993 Report", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The provisional outturn for Community expenditure on sugar in 1994 is 2,062 mecu—£1,593 million1. Production and storage levies contributed 1,118 mecu—£864 million1—to own resources.

  Details of the Exchequer cost of CAP support in the UK for sugar can be found in section 1 of table 9.1 of "Agriculture in the UK", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House. The UK also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of the CAP support in other member states.

  1£1=1.2945 ecu.

  Rice
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what price British wholesalers buy rice per tonne; what he estimates the price of rice per tonne would be in the free market without European Community price intervention and what is the annual cost to the British consumer of the common agricultural policy in the rice market. [16135]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the price of rice to wholesalers is not gathered centrally.

  It is not possible to estimate what the price of rice per tonne would be in the free market without European Community intervention without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions.

  The only readily available information on the cost to the British consumer of the common agricultural policy in the rice market is given by the consumer subsidy equivalents in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "Agricultural Policies, Markets and Trade, Monitoring and Outlook 1994".

  Organo-phosphorous Chemicals
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the latest report from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on adverse reactions to organo-phosphorous chemicals by farmers; and what change to such reactions was shown by the last published report. [16062]

  Mrs. Browning
  I expect the next report to the Veterinary Products Committee, by the appraisal panel for human suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines, to be published by the end of April. Only one report has thus far been published, so no comparisons can yet be drawn.

  Wine
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what price British wholesalers buy wine per 75 cl bottle; what he estimates the price of wine per bottle would be in a free market without European Community price intervention; what are the levels of European Community production and consumption; what is the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on wine subsidies; and what is the cost 622
  to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the wine sector. [16155]

  Mr. Jack
  The price at which British wholesalers buy wine is a matter for commercial negotiation and varies by consignment.

  For this reason, and because it would require a large number of hypothetical assumptions, it is not possible to estimate what the price of wine per bottle would be in the free market without European Community intervention.

  The European Commission estimates that European Community wine production in the 1993–94 wine year was 159 million hectolitres, that 129 mhl was consumed as wine in the EC, net exports were 9 mhl and other uses—for example, vinegar, vermouth and eaux de vie—12 mhl.

  Total common agricultural policy expenditure in 1994 on the wine regime was 1,220 million ecu, or £1,002 million, provisional outturn.

  The Exchequer cost of CAP support for wine in the UK is estimated at £820,000 for the 1994–95 financial year. The UK also contributes to the European Community budget as a whole, which funds the cost of the wine support system in other member states.

  Olive Oil
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what price British wholesalers buy olive oil per tonne; what she estimates the price of olive oil per tonne wold be in a free market without European Community price intervention; and what is the annual cost to the consumer of taxes on imports of olive oil. [16133]

  Mr. Jack
  Prices received by producers for agricultural commodities are reported to Eurostat and a consistent series for olive oil appears in the publication "Agricultural Prices", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  It is not possible to estimate what the price of olive oil would be in the free market without European Community intervention without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions.

  No estimates are readily available on the annual cost to the consumer of taxes on imports of olive oil.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of goat pox were reported in each year since 1985. [15973]

  Mrs. Browning
  No cases of goat pox have ever been recorded in England.

  Fish Catches
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the value and tonnage of i(a) fish, (b) molluscs and (c) crustacea landed in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Wales, (iii) England, (iv) Scotland and (v) Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [16690]
  623
  Mr. Jack
  The available information is published in table 3.3. of "UK Sea Fisheries Statistics", 1993.

  Comparable information for 1994 is not yet available.

  Fishing Restrictions
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the defence his officials will be employing in the European Court of Justice in the case brought by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations against the Government's days at sea restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [16371]

  Mr. Jack
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment in advance of the oral hearing due to take place in Luxembourg on 29 March. The positions of both parties will, however, be a mater of public record in the reports of proceedings and, ultimately, the judgment of the court.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to abandon the defence of the days at sea restrictions in the European Court of Justice in the case being brought by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; and if he will make a statement. [16370]

  Mr. Jack
  The action in question was initiated by the NFFO by way of judicial review in the United Kingdom courts of certain measures adopted by Parliament. It was subsequently referred to the European court for a ruling on the interpretation of EU law. In the circumstances, the Government are obliged to respond and explain their position. It is, however, open to the applicants to discontinue the proceedings at any stage.

  Mr. Philip J. Corrigan
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to obtain from the Minister of Primary Industries and Energy in Australia details of the nature and outcome of each of the charges under the Australian Public Service Act against Mr. Philip J. Corrigan, now appointed head of operations at the Meat Hygiene Service; and if he will make a statement on the information so obtained. [16724]

  Mrs. Browning
  My Ministry has contacted the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in Canberra on this matter.

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the number and total acreage of tenancies under the categories(a) agricultural holding tenancies as defined in the Agriculture Act 1986, (b) Gladstone v. Bower arrangements, (c) grazing or mowing agreements and (d) Ministry-approved short-term lettings and licences. [14927]

  Mr. Jack
  The surveys operated by MAFF do not require respondents to supply the level of detailed information that would enable these separate totals to be compiled. There is, however, a survey carried out annually by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers which gives information on new lettings in these categories.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list those producer organisations in the fishing industry that were fined in each year since 1988 for overshooting their allocated quota; [15587]

  (2) what evidence he has that producer organisations in the fishing industry have taken action against individual members who breached their quota in each year since 1988; [15589]

  (3) if he will list for each year since 1988 what action was taken by his Department against those producer organisations in the fishing industries which overshot their quota; and how many prosecutions were commenced in England and Wales; [15586]

  (4) if he will list those producer organisations in the fishing industry that have taken action against individual members; and what penalties were imposed in each case in England and Wales since 1988. [15588]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: In the United Kingdom, producer organisations are permitted to manage allocations of quota on behalf of those members with vessels exceeding 10m overall length. Once an allocation has been made, it is the responsibility of the producer organisation to ensure that its overall allocation is not exceeded and to take appropriate action to deal with those members who infringe the rules of the organisation. The fisheries departments do not maintain records of the disciplinary action that producer organisations take. Where a producer organisation has exceeded or is likely to exceed its quota allocation for any particular stock, the licences of its members will be varied to prohibit further landings of the stock in question.

  Producer organisations are subject to a system of quota penalties and compensation for over-fishing. These arrangements, which have been agreed with the industry, require that where any producer organisation or other group in the UK fishing fleet exceeds its allocation for a particular stock, the over-fish will not be included in its track record when the departments calculate the subsequent year's allocation. Where the over-fish leads to the UK quota being exceeded, and other groups in the fleet being disadvantaged by the early closure of a fishery, the over-fish will be deducted from the offending group's allocation for the subsequent year. This deduction will then be used to compensate groups prejudiced by the over-fishing, after taking account of those groups likely uptake had the fishery not been closed.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list for each year since 1988(a) the total allowable catch for each International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area, (b) the British total allowable catch for each ICES area, (c) the total allocated to each producer organisation in tonnage and percentage terms of the British total allowable catch and (d) the total allocated to the non-sector in tonnage and percentage terms of the British total allowable catch; [15591]

  (2) if he will list those producer organisations in the fishing industry which overshot their allocated quota for each species in each year since 1988 in England and Wales. [15585]
  625
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: The system of sectoral management, under which producer organisations may manage allocations of quota on behalf of their members, has been fully operational since 1991.

  I have arranged for tonnage data on Community TACs and UK quota since 1988, and on allocations made to producer organisations and the non sector and the uptake of their allocations since 1991, to be placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce or withdraw British forces in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [14640]

  Mr. Soames
  We intend to maintain our contribution to UNPROFOR so long as our forces can continue to carry out the UN mandate at an acceptable level of risk. The size of our contribution is kept under close review.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what redeployment is planned for UK military forces currently serving with UNPROFOR in Croatia. [14647]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  24. Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently serving in Bosnia with the United Nations; and what plans he has for increasing their numbers. [14651]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently some 3,400 British personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia as part of UNPROFOR. Some 190 personnel are on standby to deploy to Bosnia as the remainder of the additional forces which the United Kingdom offered to the UN in January to help with the implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the chemical weapons convention on international security. [14641]

  Mr. Soames
  The chemical weapons convention provides for a comprehensive, global and verifiable ban on a complete class of weapons of mass destruction and also for the destruction of very large quantities of existing chemical warfare agents. Once fully implemented it will make a significant contribution to international security.

  Armed Services (Deaths)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the number of members of Her Majesty's armed services who have died on active service since 1965. [14642]

  Mr. Soames
  In the period from 1966 to 1994, 850 members of the armed forces have died on active service as a result of hostile and enemy action or as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.

  National Army Museum
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the development of the national army museum beyond London; and if he will make a statement. [14643]

  Mr. Soames
  Although the national army museum receives a grant in aid from my Department, the question of development of the museum is, in the first instance, a matter for the museum trustees.

  British Defence
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that British defence will not be run by the European Commission. [14644]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. One of the key considerations in the Government's approach to the treatment of European defence issues at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference is that the essential inter-Governmental nature of decision making on defence should be preserved.

  Naval Engineering College, Manadon
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the sale of RNEC Manadon. [14645]

  Mr. Soames
  I am pleased to say that our disposal strategy has progressed well. A planning brief for the site is now complete and has been approved by Plymouth city council planning officials.

  Farms, Upper Coquet Valley
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress he has made in providing electricity supplies to farms owned by his Department in the Upper Coquet valley, Northumberland. [14646]

  Mr. Soames
  A stand-alone farm power system has been installed on one of my Department's farms on the Otterburn training area. We are at present discussing with tenants the suitability of replicating the system on other farms on the training area.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making in considering the relocation of Marines units to RAF Chivenor; and when he expects to make an announcement. [14648]

  Mr. Soames
  Studies are nearing completion and it is our intention to publish a consultative document setting out any proposals which emerge from them. No decisions will be taken until interested parties have had an opportunity to comment and their responses have been carefully considered.

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the training programme in Belize. [14650]

  Mr. Soames
  The British Army training support unit, Belize is set up to conduct jungle, field firing and adventure training, primarily at company level, and expects to train seven such deployments from the United Kingdom each year, each lasting for about six weeks. Although we do not have a regular requirement for
  627
  exercises of bigger units, there will be occasions when we would wish to deploy battalions and we have such an exercise planned for July next year.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently committed to the defence of the Falkland Islands. [14652]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr.Llwyd) on 15 February,Official Report, column 726.

  Ex-service Personnel
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next be meeting representatives of the Royal British Legion and other ex-service organisations in order to discuss the promotion of the interests of ex-service personnel and their dependants. [14653]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no plans at present to meet representatives of the Royal British Legion or other ex-service organisations. At a meeting last November between the Minister of State for Social Security, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and the Legion it was agreed that many of the matters relating to the welfare of former service personnel fall within the scope of the Department of Social Security. As a result of this agreement, that Department is now taking the lead on this issue.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions are taking place, or proposed, to revise the share of work by each nation in respect of the Eurofighter 2000 project. [15519]

  Mr. Freeman
  Workshare and other matters relating to planning for future phases of the project are covered in our regular programme of contacts with our Eurofighter 2000 partners.

  Debriefing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy in respect of debriefing service personnel formerly involved in active combat before their discharge back into the community. [15765]

  Mr. Soames
  Each of the services provides education, counselling and treatment programmes before and after active operations. These ensure that members of the armed forces are aware of the possibility of stress reaction, and that it can be identified and treated when it occurs. While the care of those who have left the armed forces is properly the responsibility of the national health service, medical summaries will in future indicate whether an individual has been treated for stress disorder while he or she was in the services.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many students from overseas were trained at Ministry of Defence establishments during 1994. [16177]
  628
  Mr. Soames
  According to available records, 4,777 overseas students were trained at UK military establishments during 1994.

  Astra plc
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific efforts were made by his Department to establish with Mr. James himself whether any of the documents referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton, (Mr. Cohen) of 21 July 1994,Official Report, column 556, were personal rather than company documents. [17002]

  Mr. Soames
  None. The documents were taken by the Ministry of Defence police from Astra plc/BMARC after Mr. James had left the company. They were considered to be company documents and treated as such throughout the MDP investigation.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he has handed any of the Astra plc documents to Sir Richard Scott, pursuant to his Department's letter of 27 January 1993 to Mr. J. Barratt of Cork Gulley. [17008]

  Mr. Soames
  The provision of documents to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry is a matter between my Department and the inquiry.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the role of Ministers and deputy permanent secretaries in his Department in authorising or sanctioning the raid on Astra plc in 1990; and which of his officials and Ministers were subsequently consulted about the return of documents. [17010]

  Mr. Soames
  None. Ministry of Defence police who conducted the investigation are operationally independent in such matters.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what opportunity was afforded to Mr. James to recover documents which may have been his personal property or to consult with his staff; and if a list of seized documents was made available to him. [17004]

  Mr. Soames
  No opportunity was offered to Mr. James to recover documents which may have been his personal property or to consult with his staff. Documents taken by Ministry of Defence police were considered to be company documents and a list was never made available to Mr. James who had left Astra/BMARC at the time of the MOD police investigation.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions when his Department has been approached by Mr. Gerald James seeking to recover his own personal documents from among those documents seized by MOD staff in April 1990. [17006]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry of Defence police have no record of any direct approach by Mr. James seeking to recover documents seized by them.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the role and function of Mr. J. W. Cassey at the offices of Astra plc in 1990; and what have been his official appointments before and since that period. [17005]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence police have no knowledge of Mr. Cassey's role and function at the offices of Astra plc in 1990; nor of his official appointments before and since that date.
  629
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what period in 1990 his staff were on the premises of Astra plc at 6 St. James place, London; and if he will summarise the documents and materials removed by his staff from those premises. [17007]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry of Defence police have not conducted a search of the premises of Astra plc at 6 St. James place, London.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and grades of the members of the panel appointed by his Department to evaluate the in-house bid by Defence Accounts Agency Department of Accounts (Bills), Liverpool to retain the service it provides at present. [16917]

  Mr. Freeman
  The panel appointed to evaluate the bid submitted by the Accounts (Bills) in-house team is:

  Name

  Grade

  Department

  Mr. M. J. Dymond

  Grade 3

  Chief Executive, Defence Accounts Agency (Chairman)

  Mrs. S. A. Beaver

  Grade 5

  Director of Procurement (Finance)

  Mr. M. A. Rowe

  Grade 5

  Director of Accounts (Bills)

  Mr. D. A. Thomas

  Grade 6

  Assistant Director of Accounts (Staff)

  Mr. P. J. Chafer

  Grade 6

  Assistant Director of Accounts (Budgets and Agency)

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which basis he estimates that the total running cost of providing the service currently provided by Defence Accounts Agency Department of Accounts (Bills), Liverpool would be 20 per cent. lower if it were provided by a private sector firm. [16913]

  Mr. Freeman
  This figure of 20 per cent. represents a level of savings achieved in other market-testing exercises. This is the target the in-house team have been asked to aim at in formulating its bid.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what market testing criteria are applicable to the in-house bid by Defence Accounts Agency Department of Accounts (Bills) for the retention of its service. [16915]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Accounts (Bills) in-house bid is being handled under the Department's market testing procedures. The bid is presently being evaluated against a formal statement of requirement, and if it is compliant a three-year service level agreement will be recorded between the MOD and the in-house team. The criteria for evaluating the bid include service delivery and standards, customer satisfaction,. flexibility and overall value for money.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to reduce the running costs of Defence Accounts Agency Department of Accounts (Bills), Liverpool by 20 per cent. by 31 March 1996. [16918]

  Mr. Freeman
  The decision to keep the work of Accounts (Bills) in-house was made on the understanding that the in-house team should be asked to achieve the sort 630
  of savings that might have been possible with a full commercial test. The financial target is 20 per cent. but the in-house team's bid will also be evaluated against a formal statement of requirement which includes quality, standard of service and value for money performance criteria.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments he has made of the impact on running costs of having the works currently carried out by Defence Accounts Agency Department of Accounts (Bills), Liverpool contracted out to a private sector firm. [16914]

  Mr. Freeman
  No specific assessment has been made although the levels of saving achieved through market testing have influenced the financial target set for the Accounts (Bills) in-house team.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has for maintaining the service provided by Defence Accounts Agency Department of Accounts (Bills), Liverpool in the event of its in-house bid being unsuccessful. [16916]

  Mr. Freeman
  The in-house bid is being evaluated. If it fails to meet the requirement the options for maintaining the service provided by Accounts (Bills) will be reviewed in the light of the reasons for non-compliance.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of field officers and above to other ranks before and after the recently announced redundancy programme; and if he will make a statement. [14935]

  Mr. Soames
  Before the recently announced programme of redundancies arising from the Defence costs study, the ratio of Army other ranks to field officers was approximately 14:1; in future it will be approximately 17:1. It has been possible to achieve these reductions without the need for a large redundancy programme, and no further Army redundancies beyond those already announced are anticipated in the foreseeable future.

  BBC "The Vet" Series
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the animals and equipment which were housed at vacant dwellings owned by his Department on the Furse Park estate at Bane Barton in Plymouth, in connection with the filming of the BBC TV vet series; [14931]

  (2) how many vacant dwellings owned by his Department on the Furse Park estate at Barne Barton in Plymouth were used by the BBC this year in connection with the filming of a programme about vets; and how much was paid to his Department for this purpose. [14932]

  Mr. Soames
  A single vacant married quarter on the Furse Park estate at Barne Barton, Plymouth, was used during the filming of a production entitled "The Vet". No animals or equipment were housed in the property, and the fee paid by the company is commercial in confidence.

  Training
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to make available information on military aid to foreign countries. [16723]

  Mr. Soames
  We disclose details of those countries which receive United Kingdom training, whether in the UK or overseas, and also the total numbers of students concerned during any particular period. It is not normally our practice to disclose the precise details of military training given to any particular country as such details are regarded as being confidential between Governments. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Road Transport Regulations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the new edition of the joint service road transport regulations; and how many copies will be printed. [16807]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will arrange for a copy of the new edition of the joint service road transport regulations to be sent, as promised in his letter of 4 January, as soon as it is available. We expect some 3,600 copies of these regulations to be distributed around the middle of the year.

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.

Lord Hope of Craighead
The Right Honourable James Arthur David Hope, Lord Justice General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session, having been created Baron Hope of Craighead, of Bamff in the District of Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle.

Generic Drugs: Veterinary Use
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they encourage the use of generic drugs to treat human beings and discourage their use by veterinary surgeons on animals.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, we encourage the use of medicinal products, including generics where they exist, which have been authorised for use in the species being treated whether human or animal.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in asking the Question, I must declare an interest in that my own vet's bill is enormous. Is my noble friend aware that veterinary licensed drugs are no longer used in some cases because of unwanted side effects but the veterinarians are then banned from going back to a well tried drug, which has been used up to now, on account of present regulations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is correct. For food animals veterinary surgeons may only prescribe treatments whose residues implications have been assessed, and that really could not be otherwise. However, that constraint does not apply to companion animals and I am aware of no circumstance in which the regulations would prohibit a veterinarian from prescribing a treatment considered necessary for clinical reasons.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only this morning a vet gave me a list of no fewer than 14 traditional remedies which range from aspirin to zinc sulphate which the vets now fear could render them liable to prosecution if they were administered? A number of these products can be bought across the counter for human use. In the past I have used almost all of them on animals with no obvious danger to man
1496
or beast. Is the Minister aware that most people thought that deregulation was supposed to bring this sort of nonsense to an end?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have just said, I am aware of no circumstances in which the regulations as they are now framed—they transpose precisely into UK law what the directive says—would prohibit a vet from prescribing a treatment that he or she considers is necessary for clinical reasons. In the end, it is up to the vet to exercise his or her professional judgment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I have had correspondence with a vet and clearly many people in the profession have the impression that EEC directive 90/676 precludes the use of certain generic drugs in non-food animals? Is he aware that while it is appreciated that one has to be careful about residues in food animals, such considerations do not exist, and need not apply, in the case of non-food animals? Will he go further on this?
Earl Howe: My Lords, a guidance note on the interpretation of the regulations is available to anyone who wants it. In fact, a copy has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. However, the fact is that no vet has identified a case where the regulations would prevent the use in companion animals of a treatment that was considered essential on clinical grounds. That is the key point. There is nothing in the regulations to prevent a vet from exercising his or her professional expertise and judgment.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his reply will give a great deal of comfort to my dog-loving and cat-loving friends, who have been extremely worried by what they have read in veterinary journals and in the newspapers? Will he do all that he can to publicise his welcome reply?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I too have seen some newspaper coverage of this subject, which has not presented a fair picture. That is why I commend to my noble friend the guidance to which I have just referred.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, is there any way in which the Government could encourage pharmaceutical companies at least to listen to the anxieties expressed by the veterinary community and find a way whereby the companies can obtain a licence less cheaply?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness means more cheaply.
Baroness Wharton: Yes, my Lords.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point entirely. Pharmaceutical companies are encouraged to apply for veterinary licences in respect of existing licensed human medicines. That need not involve a particularly onerous cost or procedure. Often little development work is required, and the application procedure is quite simple.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's response. However, does he agree that farmers in many other European countries are allowed

1497
to use these new products, including those used for human treatment, and obtain new products well ahead of our farmers because they do not abide by the legislation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, so far as we know other member states have, like the UK, made national regulations incorporating the provisions of the directive into national law. We have no reason to believe that a stricter approach to enforcement is being taken in one member state than in another.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be very interested in the Minister's distinction between companion animals and food animals. Can the Minister advise the House which statute defines such animals and what the penalties are for eating a companion animal and for treating as a companion an animal which is a food animal?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not sure what sort of household the noble Lord has in mind. The distinction is well defined and is well understood by vets. That is the key point. If a vet has reason to believe that an animal under his care will end up in the human food chain, clearly his choice of veterinary medicines is rather different from that which would apply if it was clearly a companion animal.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a letter was published in the Veterinary Record from at least 12 veterinary practices which take a different view from that expressed by my noble friend? Furthermore, is he aware of the case of an Irish setter which has fits and needs an annual course of phenobarbitone costing £45 a year, but which will be illegal from 1st April? That animal will have to be prescribed a much more expensive drug which has unattractive side effects.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I heard of that particular case, which was reported recently in the press. There is nothing in the regulations which requires a veterinary surgeon to change an established treatment for a particular animal if in his or her professional and clinical judgment such a change could be detrimental to the animal concerned. That rule applies particularly to chronic conditions.

Armed Forces: Trained Personnel
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the predicted shortfall of trained officers and servicemen in the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force at the end of the current financial year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, there will be surpluses in the trained strengths of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force at the end of this financial year, although they will have small deficits in some
1498
specialisations and there will be overall a small deficit in the trained strength of the Army at the end of this financial year.
Lord Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very honest reply. Will the Minister confirm whether, because of the reduction in manpower ceilings as a result of earlier cuts in defence spending, there are now insufficient established posts in Royal Naval ships at sea and in the Army for tasks in Northern Ireland and Bosnia which continue to lead to overstretch and frustration? What action do the Government propose to reduce that shortfall?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, there are surpluses in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and there is a small overall deficit in the Army. I can also confirm that no unit of any of the three services currently deployed on an operational task is below strength for that particular task. However, as I made clear, there is an overall deficit of some 67 soldiers in the Army. I appreciate that that is a net figure, and the numbers are somewhat higher for soldiers than for officers, where there is a surplus rather than a deficit. Obviously, we shall take measures to combat any particular problems in recruitment and will certainly keep all measures for assisting retention under review.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any anticipated shortfall in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve of officers or men?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any such shortfall. As the noble Lord will know, we announced that we shall retain the strength of the Territorial Army at roughly 59,000. That announcement was supported by all sides of the House.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there has been any change in the Government's assessment of our necessary commitments during this period? Will he give an assurance that there has been no change in our commitment in Northern Ireland?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes slightly wider than the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord will know that an announcement was made last week that another unit was being returned home from Northern Ireland. We hope very much that as the process continues in Northern Ireland it may be possible to withdraw others. But that will depend very much on what is happening there and what the chief constable feels is necessary.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his replies will be very reassuring to those of us concerned about the strength of the Armed Forces? As regards the small shortfall which exists in the Army, can he say whether there is any regimental pattern? Press reports have suggested that some regiments, for example the Parachute Regiment, are seriously under strength. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously the position varies from unit to unit. Very broadly, the shortfall is in the infantry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal

1499
Artillery. In comparison, I think I can say that the Royal Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps, REME and the Adjutant General's Corps are in surplus. There will then be variations within individual infantry units. As I said, we shall certainly consider whether various different remedial measures regarding short-term enlistment of TA personnel, the payment of an enlistment bounty, or the payment of a retention bonus might help in particular cases.
I can also say that there were press reports of particularly severe levels of under-strength in the three parachute regiments. I can assure the noble Lord that those levels were not nearly so bad as was reported in the press.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that by April there will be a 3.3 per cent. shortfall in the armoured regiments and the Household Cavalry? Will he comment on the report in the Daily Telegraph—I always regard that paper as a relatively reliable source of information—which quotes one official as saying,
"People are fatter. Many have no concept of how far a mile is, let alone of running it".
The article states that recruits are generally too soft for life in the forces.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that perhaps as a personal criticism; some of us are somewhat fatter. Possibly the comment applies to Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and not to soldiers.
I cannot confirm the first figure which the noble Lord gave. The deficit that I gave regarding the Royal Armoured Corps is of the order of 1.4 per cent. I accept that it is still a deficit. As I made clear earlier in answer to a noble Lord, we are considering various remedial measures.
Obviously physical standards, in particular regarding recruits, is a matter that we shall have to look at. In future, we may have to accept lower standards and then train the recruits a little longer to take off that surplus weight.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as regards providing trained officers in the Royal Navy, can my noble friend indicate how long the Royal Navy will be able to rely on the Royal Naval College at Greenwich to provide some of the academic training needed for the particular skills involved? If the college at Greenwich closes, what alternative arrangements will be made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend's question is way beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I am sure that he will look forward to an announcement on the subject of Greenwich and Camberley which will be made shortly.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the fact that so many people now wear soft shoes that when they join the Army they damage their legs? That is a fact. Will he talk to his noble friend in the Department of Health to seek to make people aware of the damage that they do to themselves by inadequate training'?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I really think that what shoes individuals wear should be a matter for
1500
themselves. What my colleagues in the Department of Health think is another matter. As I made clear, I accept that physical standards are not always what we might like them to be. If we have to accept lower standards, we would obviously train those people for a little longer to get them up to our standards.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, being aware of the soft shoe shuffle, will the Minister confirm that no studies are currently being undertaken further to reduce the strength of our Armed Forces?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, that is another question. I can only repeat the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, that we consider it necessary to have a period of stability in the Armed Forces for the foreseeable future and that there will be no further cuts in the front line strength.

Kent: Local Government Structure
3.4 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have announced a further consultation for the county of Kent on a local government structure which has been rejected by the Local Government Commission after consultation with all concerned; and whether they have taken full account of the cost in money and efficiency of continuing the consultation for a further year.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, while we have decided against wholesale change in Kent, we intend to ask the Local Government Commission to undertake fresh reviews of Gillingham, Rochester upon Medway and, possibly, Dartford and Gravesham. Our decision takes account of the characteristics of these districts, the representations we have received, and the need for consistency, coherence and stability in the future structure of local government. Since the reviews will be focused on districts, the cost and the impact on the rest of the county should be minimised.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which is rather fuller than the one he was able to give on the last occasion the matter was raised. However, is he aware that the Local Government Commission's report covered all the points to which he has referred? The commission went out to consultation on Option One which is exactly the proposal that my noble friend says the Secretary of State is referring back. The answer to that consultation was that around 70 per cent. of the people in the county were against the option and in favour of the two-tier existing structure. A slightly higher percentage was against the option in the four districts to which the Minister has referred. Why are the Government flouting the expression of local opinion? What good does that do?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the review, and for that matter the re-review, is more than just an opinion

1501
poll. It involves securing effective and convenient local government which reflects local needs and identities. After the final report from the Local Government Commission was published, Ministers received strong representations in favour of unitary status from north-west Kent and the Medway area. Written representations were received from Dartford, Gillingham and Rochester councils and from the Medway Chamber of Commerce. All four local MPs from Gillingham, Medway, Dartford and Gravesham met Ministers and argued in favour of unitary status for their areas. I believe that my right honourable friend was quite in order to consider that those re-reviews should take place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the primary legislation under which such consultation takes place, as tested in the courts by Derbyshire County Council and by Lancashire County Council, in which I declare an interest as a member, requires that the first question to be put in the consultation must be whether there is a case for change supported by the local community?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the criteria set out in the Local Government Act 1992—namely, the need to secure effective and convenient local government and to reflect the identities and interests of local communities—still apply. However, as I indicated on a previous occasion, we shall be consulting on new guidance to the Local Government Commission in April or May.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, what reason is there to suppose that as regards Warrington in Cheshire, where I live, a reconstituted commission will reach a different conclusion from that of its predecessor? In four separate surveys the people of the district have expressed the view that there should be no change in the structure of local government there.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that that is an interesting question to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. However, I believe that Warrington is rather a long way, both physically and metaphorically, from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is this a case like the Newbury by-pass on which the Minister is unable to make up his mind for fear of criticism?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I do not believe that to be the case. I have indicated that this is about reflecting convenient local government. The Government took account of local opinion and the case for unitary authorities in north-west Kent. The concept of a coherent community, identity and interest, the markedly different characteristics from the rest of Kent, and the community of interest in economic development, gave my right honourable friend considerable backing to ask the Local Government Commission, when reconstituted, to review those specific areas.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the representations made by the four MPs and
1502
others to his right honourable friend were also made to the Local Government Commission several times? The representations were bandied about in the press. Everyone has been aware of all the points. The commission found that 70 per cent. of the people consulted —a high percentage, and even more important than Members in the other House—were against the proposal. The Minister says that coherence is important. Does he not recollect that his noble friend Lady Blatch and the Secretary of State in the other place, as well as letters from Ministers including the Prime Minister, have constantly emphasised that the Government were not in favour of a national blueprint? Why is the Minister now suddenly saying that the Government have changed their mind?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that there is a world of difference between forcing local government to conform to a rigid blueprint—as my noble friend suggested—and asking the commission to look again at a small number of districts to ensure that the pattern which emerges from the review has an internal logic which will give it long-term stability.

Renewable Energy Sources
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan The Earl of Buchan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are encouraging the development of renewable sources of energy.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): Yes, my Lords. The Government's policy is to encourage the development of new and renewable energy sources wherever they have the prospect of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. The non-fossil fuel obligation is the principal vehicle for achieving that.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful Answer. Proverbs 15, verse 1, shall apply.
In cases of threatened wind farm turbine blight, as referred to in the authoritative Daily Telegraph article yesterday—one at Carno in Wales and another to come at Barningham on the Yorkshire/Durham border—who is supposed to hold the general interest between the profit-orientated power companies, the people living in the area and the general environmental effect of turbines?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before a wind turbine farm can be created, or any other type of generating capacity, it has to have planning permission. That is where the interests of the people in the locality are met, whether they are to encourage that form of electricity production or whether it would be too offensive for the locality. That is a matter for the planning authorities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister seen the reports that were published this week confirming the predictions of global warming which have been made in

1503
the past? Will the Government carry out a study on the implications of global warming for the United Kingdom? In particular, there is the predicted rise in sea levels around the United Kingdom by the year 2050. Would that not give the Government reason to encourage the use of renewable sources of energy to a greater extent, as well as putting more money into conservation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that global warming is a matter of anxiety. That is one of the reasons, but not the only reason, we encourage the generation of electricity by renewable sources. Quite a lot is being done.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government keep in mind the prospects of harnessing tidal energy or currents at sea, for example, in the Pentland Firth? That should not cause any disturbance on land or environmental objections. Although such projects have not so far proved to be economic, might they not become so as circumstances change?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is certainly true. While something may not be economic at one time, circumstances may change so that it may well become economic. However, until it does, one cannot do anything about it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that wind turbines are visually ugly and destructive of the landscape? Is he further aware that 1,000 wind turbines are needed to provide as much energy as one 2,000 megawatt power station and that they require hundreds of acres of land? They are, therefore, wasteful of land. Will the Minister agree that the best way of obtaining energy is to conserve it? Will the Government assist householders and industry to do just that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a totally different twist to the Question. We encourage people to conserve energy. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that wind turbines are ugly and he does not like looking at them. However, we all sometimes have to look at things that are ugly, as we know. I cannot quite understand why noble Lords find that so funny.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You are not sitting where we are!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Opposition Chief Whip is becoming personal, but I was not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, should not be allowed to get away with his statement on the waste of land? Sheep graze all around a wind farm and the only land used is the minuscule amount for each windmill. I find them attractive.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that that is an interesting question.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that those sources of power are fitful and their availability is unpredictable? Unless they work in conjunction with pumped storage of some kind, they are merely toys.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the noble Earl, but I disagree totally with that comment. Vast quantities of renewable sources of energy are available. Under the non-fossil fuel obligation we are trying to encourage the companies and firms who are involved at the beginning of the enterprise to set it up so that it then becomes compatible with other systems. With the greatest respect, the noble Earl is not correct when he says that the systems are toys.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Earl care to pass on his original Answer to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales? He said that the wind farms were acceptable if they were economically attractive as well as environmentally acceptable. Clearly, as the noble Earl rightly said, whether they are environmentally acceptable is a matter for the local authorities and planning procedure. Will he accept, however, that the renewable energy sources are only economically attractive if they are subsidised? Otherwise, they are economically wholly unattractive.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord. He asked a question and perhaps he will be good enough not to shake his head in dissent before I have even answered it. At the moment a certain amount of subsidy is given in order to enable those generating stations to compete and bring the price of electricity down to a competitive rate. When the period of subsidy is over, the stations may well reach a stage where they can contribute. The commercial market for renewable technologies in this country is estimated to be £3,000 million; throughout the world it is £30,000 million.

Health Authorities Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Abolition of RHAs, DHAs and FHSAs and duty to establish Has]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page t, line 11, at end insert
("(1A) Before making any order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate about the desirability of making the order and shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the consultation.
(1B) If either House of Parliament resolves, in the light of the report made under subsection (1A) above, that the Secretary of State shall not make any order to establish a new health authority, the Secretary of State shall by order instead establish—

1505

(a) authorities for such regions in England as he may by order determine, and

(b) authorities for such areas in Wales or those regions in England established under paragraph (a) above as he may by order determine;

and orders determining regions or areas in pursuance of this subsection shall be separate from orders establishing authorities for the regions or areas.
(1C) The authorities established by order under subsection (1B) above shall be named as follows—

(a) an authority established for a region shall be called a Regional Health Authority;

(b) an authority established for an area shall be called a Health Authority and in addition by a special name signifying the connection of the Health Authority with the area for which It is to act.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to reconsider some of the very radical proposals for yet again reorganising the National Health Service which are contained in this Bill. It aims to persuade them to consult more generally and more widely, particularly among those who work in the NHS and those of us who use it, about whether or not the abolition of the regional health authorities—one of the structural changes proposed in the Bill—will enhance the National Health Service or detract from its services to all of us.
Noble Lords who took part in debates on the earlier reorganisation of the health service about four years ago, at the beginning of the so-called reforms, will remember that there were constant requests from all sides of this Chamber that the proposals should be introduced gradually; that there might be opportunities for testing, for perhaps piloting, some of the schemes that were introduced; and that the internal market should, as it were, be a gradual revolution. All noble Lords who took part in those debates and made those points were disappointed. As we all know, the whole reorganisation was introduced on one day and a nationwide revolution went ahead, and many noble Lords are aware of the results. In particular, those noble Lords who are members of health authorities or of trust bodies know that there has been a large degree of uncertainty and concern about those changes as they have been brought about. It is instructive to notice from the poll published at the end of last week that public concern about the NHS is at its highest for three years—that is, since the so-called reforms were introduced. This amendment is designed to try to learn the lessons of the past and to think again, steadily and clearly, about the way in which these new proposals are to be introduced.
It is interesting that the noble Baroness the Minister, in winding up the debate at Second Reading, herself drew the attention of the House to the fact that only four out of the 19 Members who spoke in that debate had given the proposals wholehearted support. A great deal of the specific concern that was raised in various different ways at Second Reading was about the abolition of the regions.
One of the problems about this particular Bill is that it is enabling legislation. A great deal of the detail is not contained on the face of the Bill and will be subject to later regulations. But, in general, my criticism of the
1506
regional abolition is perhaps best expressed by the Minister in her winding-up speech at Second Reading. She said:
"The role of the regional offices will be quite different from that of the old regional health authorities. In the old NHS structure it was appropriate for RHAs to be separated from the Department of Health, but in the new system health authorities will be the main operators. They will take most of the decisions which directly affect local people".—[Official Report, 6/3/95; col. 68.]
That expresses my concern about the basic principle of abolishing the regional health structure within the health service: we achieve fragmentation of the national structure and centralisation through the regional offices at the same time.
At Second Reading I proposed a number of tests against which we should judge whether or not we felt that the changes to the NHS were ones that we should support. They included tests about the effectiveness of the service, its efficiency, its equity and its accountability. All of those points are addressed in separate amendments later on the Marshalled List; but if I could summarise them as they are on the principle of the abolition of the regions they would include these major points.
In abolishing the regions we shall lose some of the crucial functions of the strategic overview of the health service which the regional authorities were independently providing in the structure. We shall particularly lose the strategic overview of some of those so-called Cinderella services which are very important to the people who receive them but are not necessarily attractive in the internal market where, as we know, individual trusts and small local health authorities will be competing with each other for business, as it is now called.
I include in those strategic functions that we shall lose when the statutory regional authorities go, concern about mental health, and particularly about the programmes for looking after people with mental illness in the community; concerns about HIV and AIDS, which, again, have been issues addressed by regional bodies; and concerns about the areas of drugs and alcohol abuse. As noble Lords will see, none of those is the kind of subject that is necessarily attractive to small local health authorities which are competing with other small local authorities for business within the internal market. Nonetheless, they are extremely important. They are crucial elements of the National Health Service and in the delivery of services which are best looked at in the context of a regional overview and a regional provision of services.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, who, sadly, cannot be with us this afternoon, was very eloquent at Second Reading about the importance of maintaining the tertiary services which are offered, and have been offered, by the regional services of the NHS. He spoke about the planning of expensive tertiary services, such as neurology and cardiology, which have previously been overtaken at the regional health authority level and on which there seemed to be very little guidance about how and where they will be effectively planned and organised in the future. As the noble Lord said, these were regional specialities which could be "glamour" specialities for individual trusts rather than the services

1507
that I mentioned before, in the sense that each trust might well want to compete to offer a neurology and cardiology service, for example, but that that might not be a very economic or effective way of offering those services, and was the kind of thing that had been handled best at the regional level.
The noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Dainton, and several other noble Lords with considerable experience in the field of academic medicine, were also concerned at Second Reading about the links with universities which had been maintained in the previous arrangements at the regional level. They queried the problem that there no longer seemed to be formal representation for academic medicine at the university level with the regions. I understand that there has been a suggestion that there will obviously be informal links. However, noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading were most concerned about the fact that there was no statutory provision for that level of input into the new regional offices of the Department of Health; and that meant that it would be unlikely that they would be involved in the management and strategic planning of the work of the NHS in the way that they had been before, which would indeed be a loss to the health service in general.
In that area, too, is the whole question of research and development. Noble Lords will be aware, because it was the result of an initiative by this House, that the research and development programme of the NHS was established some few years ago. Research and development has become a very important part of maintaining standards of excellence within the NHS. Up to now it has been largely directed and planned by the regional directors of research and development, who have themselves been attached to the regional health authorities.
These matters will perhaps be the concern of the regional offices—the regional outposts of the Department of Health. But one of the matters that is of concern, and was mentioned often at Second Reading, relates to independence and the separate arrangements for the input of academic medicine—the regional postgraduate deans, the regional directors of research and development—which has been so important in the past few years. There was concern that if those people were to become civil servants—that is, direct employees of the Department of Health through the regional outposts rather than being part of an independent statutory body as they had been as members of the regional health authority—then in a sense their academic and intellectual independence was to some extent under threat.
That brings me to the other major point of concern about the abolition of the regional health authorities; namely, accountability. As regards the regional health authorities with their independent chairmen, many points were raised at Second Reading about whether or not they were truly independent or were political placemen of the Government. Membership of the authorities will he addressed in later amendments. But the statutory independence of the regional health authority provided a very important step in the relationship between the Department of Health and the
1508
management executive of the health service and the very local concerns of independent health authorities and trusts.
The Government have often spoken of how this new Bill will reduce bureaucracy and levels of management in the health service. As we know, there has been much criticism from this side of the Chamber about the explosion in management in the health service over the past few years. But it is worth remembering that that explosion has not taken place at the regional level. In fact, at the regional level the number of managers and administrators has been reduced. It is at the lower health authority and trust level that the numbers of managers have increased so greatly; it is there that the operations of the internal market—the contracting system—have meant that more and more people have had to be involved.
In a sense, the notions of bureaucracy and accountability have to some extent been confused by the Government. It seems to me that accountability can be achieved through the lean structure of the RHAs as that has now developed. As I said, the number of bureaucrats and administrators at that level has been reduced. But one does not automatically achieve something good simply by sweeping away a number of officers. What is lost in terms of public accountability, which, as we know, has been under question within the health service, through abolishing that regional tier is much more than what is gained by reducing the number of officers.
Perhaps I may quote again from another expert in the field of health care, Professor David Hunter, who is director of the Nuffield Institute for Health at the University of Leeds. He recently wrote that the essential functions of the regional health authorities which seem to have no firm place in the new structure included,
"arbitrating in local disputes; providing a challenge to local myopia in service development and commissioning …encouraging innovation and new ways of doing things; promoting health strategy development, community care and priority services, and research and development".
All those suggest a very good reason for thinking again about the abolition of the regional health authorities and indeed for consulting further and explaining more about where those functions will reside under the Bill.
I was interested to note that yesterday, in answer to a question in this Chamber, the Minister said that she had learnt not to say "never, ever" in the health service. I hope that she will apply that judgment to this amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: On behalf of these Benches I support very much the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. She explained it in great detail. There is not much that I can add. I like the thought that it gives us the opportunity to think again.
In my view, the regions have served the NHS very well. We removed the area health authority at one point and that was perfectly correct because it should never have been there in the first place. But the region is a completely different animal. If we are to have a National Health Service which has some kind of uniformity, in the sense that everybody receives the same services

1509
wherever they happen to live in the country, it cannot be left completely to health authorities which just cover a small district. The regional health authorities have served us very well.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister will think back and consider how we would have dealt with the establishment of regional specialties and regional centres if there had not been the regional health authorities in the past. It certainly would not have been done by the district health authorities, as there is always a desire to have the maximum amount of services within one's own district, particularly under the present purchaser and provider system which is an encouragement to have the high-tech and expensive services with which more money can be earned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was perfectly right to say that there is another function for which the regions have been responsible and which would be lost if they were abolished; namely, the strategic overview they have taken of services which she called the Cinderella services. That role is of tremendous importance. It has become even more important since the new health reforms were introduced because they are not the glamorous services which attract a large amount of cash. I agree that the regions have also acted as a stopgap for arbitration in disputes.
Additionally, the regions have been responsible for medical training, strategic planning of nurse education, various health programmes, such as screening for cancer, and research and development. According to the new plans, some of those duties will be undertaken by the regional outposts. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I much prefer those responsibilities to be undertaken by people who are not civil servants but who represent us, the general public and the patients in the community. Other responsibilities will be taken over by the new health authorities which may not have the necessary expertise. They will frequently look at problems from a parochial point of view. If the responsibility for nurse training is spread to the health authorities, they will consider what is needed within each little area. They will not think about the matter from a national point of view. That could be very detrimental to the future of the health service. After all, we rely on the nurses and on producing enough nurses for the future. I feel that there is a great danger under the proposed alterations that that will not happen.
I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about the abolition of the regional health authorities. If they do not accept our proposal that they should remain, will they accept that the regional outposts must have a much bigger input from ordinary, independent people?
Lord Elton: I was very surprised when the noble Baroness sat down, because I thought that after her summary of our debate at Second Reading she would address the intentions within her amendment and tell us how they would work. In the absence of such an explanation, I assume that the principal intention is the one she briefly outlined and upon which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, elaborated; namely, the substitution of a two-tier system for the one-tier system proposed in the Bill.
1510
The Bill passed Second Reading. Its sole purpose is to introduce a single-tier system. It seems to me that we should not waste too long discussing overturning the whole principle of the Bill by an amendment which the Opposition have not even taken the trouble to explain.
Lord Rea: One of the questions unanswered by the Bill concerning the proposed abolition of the regions is: what is to become of the organisation of postgraduate medical education? The regional postgraduate deans and the regional advisers in general practice have played, and do play, a major role in the organisation of postgraduate education for general practitioners, general practitioner trainees and junior doctors. I am familiar with the work of the regional advisers in general practice, who are responsible not only for postgraduate education, but also for the training, selection and supervision of the general practitioners who are to become trainers involved in the vocational training scheme in general practice. Without them the success story of raising the status and academic standards of British general practice over the past 25 years could not have occurred.
It was suggested that the contracts of junior hospital doctors, which are now held by the regions, should be held by the regional postgraduate deans. But where will they be based? Where will they obtain the infrastructure to carry out the job efficiently? If the regional postgraduate structure is to be maintained as it should be, the new health authorities individually, even if they undertake postgraduate eduction, will need to be co-ordinated nationally. Where will the offices of the postgraduate dean and advisers be situated? To whom will they be accountable?
I assume that universities will continue to play a major part. But that needs to be in the Bill. Surely it will be easier to continue this vital part of the National Health Service—that is, the system for postgraduate education—if the regional structure of the National Health Service remains, as the amendment allows.
Baroness Gardner of Parks: I take the technical point made by my noble friend Lord Elton and find it interesting that we are developing arguments on this amendment. I was amazed to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, say that this was a case of the National Health Service being reformed "yet again"—that was her expression—when that is not at all the case. This is just the next stage in the present reform. I shall be opposed to any further reform. This is the end of the reform and in the Second Reading debate many of us said that it was time to allow the health service to settle down and start working because it has been reformed too often. This is not a new reform; it is a further stage in the reform about which everyone has known for a long time.
The noble Baroness went on to say that there was a large degree of uncertainty in regard to the changes. That may be true. But the staff in the regions are aware of what is happening and of what they expect to happen. Nothing could be worse than deferring any kind of decision on this matter in such a way that those people are thrown into a greater state of uncertainty. Many are already looking into what their position will be. The whole system is geared to the fact that staff come high

1511
on the list of concerns and are being carefully considered in the arrangements that are being made at the moment.
The noble Baroness said that health authorities make most of the decisions. She seemed to think that that was bad. I believe it is good. It makes the situation more localised and closer to those people receiving the service. The Cinderella services were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. We are overlooking the role of the CHCs in this. The community health councils are aware of the Cinderella services and are active and efficient in drawing attention to any gap they see in the provision of services under the National Health Service.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was chairman of a regional health authority, nursing education was quite different from what it is now. Project 2000, which is the present system of training, meets her anxieties in that regard. I should perhaps say that I was vice-chairman of a regional health authority until a year ago when I became chairman of one of the large acute hospital trusts. But I am well aware of the Culyer Report on research. People do not need to worry. Everyone working within the National Health Service is aware of the emphasis that will be placed on research and on further postgraduate education. There is already a federation of teaching hospital trusts which meets regularly. The chairman of that body is based in Liverpool and I am convinced that there will be no problem as regards the future. The academic world of medicine is most concerned and interested to see that postgraduate education continues, as well as undergraduate education. The amendment is simply obstructive and I shall oppose it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I act as a consultant to Unison. I confess that I do not agree with the points of view just expressed from the other side of the Chamber. After all, the amendment seeks to ensure that further consultation takes place before a final decision is made. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, believe that that is unreasonable. But in my view this amendment was tabled following the anxiety expressed by many people and organisations.
Why is it that we all receive briefings from such places as the Royal College of Nursing, from the BMA and all kinds of other organisations which are concerned that the measures at present dealt with by the regional health authorities should continue to be exercised in a proper manner, worthy of the service and suitable for the patient'? I accept that it is entirely reasonable for the Opposition to seek to ensure that those people's views are taken into account, and that is exactly what the amendment seeks to do. Quite frankly, to try to abolish a tier which has worked extremely well over decades requires extra special attention and therefore, for myself, I believe that the amendment is reasonable and should be considered.
There is something else that I want to know. We are abolishing the regional tier and will have other regions of civil servants. How are they to be answerable to the patient? How are they to be answerable to the public'? And
1512
how are they to be answerable to Parliament? At present the regional health authorities are answerable to the public and therefore they are not constrained in any way by any oath they take in relation to the Official Secrets Act. Will we find, because of that oath of secrecy taken by civil servants, that information we have hitherto received will not be given to the public and to Parliament? We want to know—certainly I do; I do not know about my noble friends—to whom the new bodies will be answerable and how they will exercise the power being given to them.
That is another good reason for accepting the amendment and why my noble friend should not be criticised for tabling it. It is important. We need to be sure that the people involved in the reorganisation are satisfied that it will be to the advantage of the National Health Service and that the reorganisation is not being done in a way that will injure the patient. That is entirely reasonable and I am surprised that there should be any criticism from the other side.
The other point which concerns me, and I shall make it my last, relates to staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, the staff are important. They will lose 1,500 jobs within the regional authorities. They have already lost 1,300 jobs, so 2,800 jobs have had to be accommodated as a result of this reorganisation. It is entirely reasonable that we should ask that the staff receive proper treatment. They need to be reassured about their pensions for the future. They need to be reassured that they can be accommodated elsewhere within the National Health Service. They need to be given some assurance that those who remain in the service will have a career progression available to them. Those are all legitimate concerns.
Consultations with the trade unions in the National Health Service have taken place in a reasonable and friendly manner, and progress has been made. But Members of the Committee are entitled to raise these issues and to be given some reassurance that staff who have given their expertise and their service to the regional authorities will be treated well and will receive assurances about their pensions, their conditions of service and, if redundancy is involved, good redundancy terms. I hope that redundancy will not be involved. I hope that all the staff will be accommodated within the new arrangements. I trust that the Committee will agree that my noble friend has done a great service in putting down this amendment as it has enabled us to discuss these very important matters in detail.
Lord Carr of Hadley: It may be that all the subjects which the noble Lord and other noble Lords have mentioned should be discussed if they have not already been discussed. However, we have surely to look at the amendment on the Marshalled List. It seeks to insert into the Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading two weeks or so ago, an amendment which in another place we would undoubtedly have described as a wrecking amendment because it seeks to go back to the principle we decided against when we gave the Bill a Second Reading.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise for interrupting but I wish to correct the impression about what happened in another place. An amendment very

1513
similar to this was discussed in Committee. It did not even include the words "to take back and consult on this issue". It simply did what the noble Lord is now suggesting constitutes a wrecking amendment. It asked for the paragraphs which come under subsection (1B) in my amendment to be reconsidered. I do not think that the noble Lord can draw on that analogy as a way of describing the impossibility of today's amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I confess to being 20 years out of date with regard to what happens and to what is thought and felt in another place. It evidently has a more humane and tolerant attitude to these matters than it would have had 20 or 30 years ago.
What we have to do is not just discuss the matters which have been mentioned but look at what the amendment would do. It would insert into the Bill very complicated procedures which would take a great deal of time to bring to fruition. If they led to changes in the structure we would produce a health service which was an extraordinary pattern of different systems of organisation in different parts of the country. I cannot believe that that would be good for the development of better health services for the patients of this country.
It so happens that purely by chance I had to lunch today someone who was my personal assistant in industry during the latter part of the 1950s and much of the 1960s. She is now a widow living alone, of my kind of age. I shall not be more specific. We did not talk about the health service but at the end of lunch I suddenly looked at the clock and said, "I must hurry you away because I have to go to the House to talk about health". She said, "Before I go, may I just say to Parliament, 'Well done' about the health service. I now come under a budget holding practice and when I need to go to hospital I go to a trust hospital. I cannot tell you how much the health service has improved in my part of Kent since reorganisation." I believe that that is increasingly the feeling of many people in this country.
It is certainly the feeling in my part of Gloucestershire where more and more people are satisfied with the improvements they experience in the way the health service is working. I should be astonished if any government of any party substantially reversed the changes. They might trim them around the edges but the changes have come to stay. If they have pot come to stay there will be a great revolt among the 'patients of this country who are seeing improvements month by month. If we were to insert into the Bill an amendment of this kind we would greatly reduce the speed with which our health services, both in general practice and in hospitals, are being improved.
Of course, not all is perfect. Of course, there are things wrong. But there always will be. And, of course, all the changes do not go right immediately; they go better in some areas than in others. But if one is looking, as we are in the case of the National Health Service, at an enormous organisation which employs about 1 million people and spends more money than any other organisation one can think of, one has to face the very difficult balance between what has to be centralised and what has to be decentralised. Anyone with practical
1514
experience of working in, let alone running, managing and directing a large organisation, has over the past 10 or 20 years come increasingly to understand that in order to make an organisation work humanely and efficiently some things have to be centralised. They need to be centralised effectively and they should be kept as few in number as possible. But other things have to be decentralised. They must be decentralised thoroughly. One must take some risks. If one puts in different layers of authority at the top and at the bottom, one gets delay, democracy, lack of speed in action and fuddled decisions.
No organisation as large as the National Health Service is perfect. It will always have faults which will need to be looked at. But I genuinely believe that results are beginning to show and that we are now on the right lines. Let us concentrate on getting those lines more right where they are not always straight at the moment rather than on trying to hold everything back and go backwards.
In moving the amendment the noble Baroness mentioned mental health, HIV and AIDS, drugs and alcohol abuse and so on, which she said would not be of attraction and interest to competing suppliers. But, with respect to the noble Baroness, that is standing everything on its head. She is not appreciating the crucial change that this service of ours is now becoming customer-driven rather than producer-driven. These things may not be of natural interest to specialised suppliers. But, my goodness, they are of prime interest to the purchasing authorities whose job it is to ensure that there are supplied in their districts the kind of services, including services for mental health, HIV and AIDS, drugs and alcohol abuse, and further education and training for all branches of the medical profession, which the patients in their areas will need. It is the purchasing authorities which increasingly have the power: they are the ones which represent the patients. That is a move in the right direction. It is because that is beginning to be felt by patients that my friend who had lunch with me a couple of hours ago said what she did on leaving.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: Perhaps we may return to the interesting point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. She said that this matter is not yet another reform of the health service but part of the seamless robe of reform which started in 1990. I was on the Front Bench team with my noble friend Lord Ennals during the passage of the Bill. I have looked through the Act and there is no reference in it to the abolition of the regions. In fact, all through that legislation the regions are built into the whole structure, including their functions. The idea that the abolition of the regions is part of the original reforms thought of at the time is plainly wrong. In fact, that is the reason why we have this Bill: to do away with them and their functions. It is reasonable to have a discussion on their functions and authority and the arguments which we shall produce for retaining them. But to imply that it is all part of the reforms that were thought of in 1990 is not correct.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend Lord Carr, like the pioneer that he is, broke absolutely new ground in actually referring to the amendment. I want to follow his very distinguished example. I differ from my noble friends who describe the measure as a wrecking amendment. I believe that the first half of the amendment is just quaint and I wonder what it will achieve. In a moment I shall invite the attention of the Committee to the amendment in some detail. The second half of the amendment is undoubtedly calculated to do damage to the Government's proposals and with that I would not agree.
I invite the Committee's attention briefly to the first four lines of the amendment which states,
"Before making any order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate".
I do not believe that one would be assuming too much if one took it for granted that the Secretary of State has already consulted those persons whom she considers to be appropriate. I believe that that would go without saying. When she was consulting about the desirability of making the order under this section, I do not believe that she could have been in any doubt as to the advice she would receive from those persons whom she considered it appropriate to consult.
Then there is the proposal that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on the consultation which has taken place. I wonder whether any of your Lordships would be so bold as to rise in his or her place this afternoon and assert that a detailed report on those consultations would be of any interest at all. I believe that it would be a great waste of time save to those who suffer from insomnia.
As I have already said, it must be apparent that the next part of the amendment is designed to make nonsense of the Government's proposals and to render them meaningless. The amendment continues:
"If either House of Parliament resolves, in the light of the report made …that the Secretary of State shall not make any order"
then certain things will follow. The report received would not put any fetter on the right of either House of Parliament to reject the Government's decision. Therefore, one must assume, as I have said, that the first part of this amendment is quaint, and the second merely wrecking.
Perhaps I may trouble the Committee for it 'moment or so with a recollection from my own past, a very long time ago—not all that long, it seems, after Noah landed in the Ark—when I found myself a member of a regional hospital board. I say nothing which reflects any disrespect whatever on the membership of the board—I would be taking great risks if I did—or on the quality of its officers. To put the matter very politely, it seemed to be yet another layer of administration. Its product was very large indeed when measured in terms of paper. It was a real paper mill.
I would just like to weary the Committee for a moment with one particular recollection. One day, having gone through a huge mass of paper, I inquired of one of the officers as to what value my opinion would be on whether Dr. So-and-So of Tewkesbury should have six months' sabbatical leave or on what a needle
1516
sharpener in Bodmin should be paid. I said that the knowledge and quality of my advice on both those subjects would be absolutely nil. The answer came clearly: "Sir, officials must be protected".
One needs to be very careful before one perpetuates the bureaucratic machines which spread paper and which ask people to pass opinions on matters as regards which they do not have any detailed knowledge.
My noble friend, Lady Cumberlege, is a most gracious lady and I am sure that she would be the first to acknowledge the generosity of the Opposition in offering her this opportunity to reconsider. But I suspect that, like so many gifts on offer today, this is not one that she will particularly value. It would not altogether surprise me if she triumphed over her habitual graciousness and actually turned it down flat. In fact, I shall go further and say that I very much hope that she will.
There is one further point that I should like to make. I recall in my distant days long past in the other place that the only weapons of Oppositions were time and delay. One of the ways to take up a little time when some particularly tiresome Bill was in the offing, was to propose a little more consultation: somebody else ought to be consulted for no very good reason, but they ought to be consulted because it would be a friendly thing to do. As a result we have the most elaborate machinery of consultation laid on us in this country which is time wasting and costly in terms of cash.
I was talking just now to my noble friend Lady Faithfull who has a very great knowledge of the social services. She was assuring me of how the social services would be relieved of an extremely tiresome duty if they had to consult only one level of administration instead of two. I am not always very friendly towards the Government's legislation, but on this occasion I find it a joy. I particularly admire my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I find it a great joy also to support what I regard as a thoroughly sensible measure. I have no doubt that my noble friend will wish to throw out an amendment which, as I have said, is quaint in the first half and in the second just damaging.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend the Minister pours what I hope will be very icy water indeed on this amendment, I would like to respond to something which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. As he knows very well, the reforms have been discussed in the health service since about 1985. The year 1990 was the tip of a particular iceberg in that discussion. The moment the 1990 Bill was published the discussion within the health service immediately turned to how much longer shall we keep the regional authorities.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may respond to that. I believe that the noble Lord is wrong. The reforms started on a "Panorama" programme when the previous Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was asked what the Government were going to do about the health service. She said that they were going to reform it. That was a surprise to her Ministers and, I believe, in particular to the Minister, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, who took over the job and found, I am told, a blank sheet of paper. The idea that these measures are a seamless robe that started in 1985 and proceeded smoothly along the way, is not so.

1517
The only point that I was making, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was that it is not correct to say that this was thought of in 1990. If that had been the case, the provisions would have been included in the Act which we spent a great deal of time discussing.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not like having to defend myself in this way; but I mentioned the date of 1985—
Lord Carter: It was 1988.
Lord Skelmersdale: —and it was my then right honourable friend, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Moore, who instigated the reforms. My right honourable friend the current Chancellor certainly did not come into office with a blank sheet of paper.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am very tempted to enter the debate on correcting the history of this matter because I was party to many of the discussions that took place at that time; but I do not think that this is quite the moment to go into that. I take on board the views of my noble friend Lord Peyton that we need to get on with the job. Perhaps we should think of the phrase, "God make speed to save us".
My noble friends Lord Elton, Lord Carr, Lord Peyton and Lord Skelmersdale were right to remind the Committee that we have already agreed the principle of the Bill at Second Reading. I made clear during that debate that one of the two purposes of the Bill is the abolition of regional health authorities. Indeed, the Long Title of the Bill makes that clear. This is a Bill to abolish regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health services authorities, and require the setting up of new health authorities. As my noble friends Lord Carr and Lord Peyton have said, that leaves many details for us to discuss; but whether to abolish RHAs is not one of them.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships why the Government have proposed the abolition of RHAs. We do not deny that RHAs played a necessary and important role in the NHS before the 1990 reforms. Their management skills were vital, not least in hands-on management of hospitals and in directing DHAs, and they carried out useful operation and co-ordinating tasks.
The regional health authorities were crucial in the first stages of the reforms. Their valuable experience and support were needed to ensure the successful development of NHS trusts, of GP fundholders and of purchasing district health authorities. Systems of management had to be built up at a local level, and RHA expertise was needed here. But as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, responsibility has now been successfully devolved from RHAs closer to patients. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Can for highlighting the success of GP fundholders and NHS trusts. The development of stronger local purchasing authorities has changed the way the NHS should be managed in the future. There are fewer purchasing authorities than there once were because of authority mergers. After this Bill there will be fewer still—only around 100 in total—so large organisations will not be needed at regional level to manage them.
1518
I do not deny that regional co-ordination will still be vital after the reorganisation. We are not proposing to move all RHA functions to health authorities—that is why the regional offices have been established. The NHS executive headquarters and the regional offices will contribute to health policy across the country and to developing the overall strategic direction of the NHS: for example, they will develop and evaluate the overall NHS research and development strategy, which has been mentioned this afternoon. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton,in absentia, that strategic planning for specialised services such as neurosurgery must of course still be performed at regional level. Health authority areas will be too small for planning such services—so they will be achieved through consortia of health authorities. These will be supported, particularly in the early stages, by the regional offices. They will not be expected to devolve functions to purchasers if they do not have confidence that they are capable of maintaining high standards.
But the need for a regional management structure does not mean that the size and bureaucratic complexity of the RHAs is still needed. Regional strategic management must be administered with a light touch, respecting the freedoms of both purchasers and providers. The effectiveness of the National Health Service Management Executive regional outposts, which had only 10 to 15 staff each to manage all the NHS trusts in the region, has shown that this new approach can be successful in the NHS.
Your Lordships have expressed doubts about the accountability of the regional offices. Perhaps I can try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and other Members of the Committee that the move from RHAs to regional offices, which are part of the Civil Service, is a logical step. The role of the regional offices is best carried out as part of the department, in direct line to the Secretary of state. They will not be taking the key decisions which will directly affect local people. The new, stronger health authorities will be taking those decisions, and they will be "independent" and "accountable" in the same way as RHAs. Regional offices will have new opportunities to influence policy by offering advice to Ministers. It is entirely appropriate this should be the province of members of the Civil Service, and the regional offices will of course be accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State, just like the rest of the department.
Because regional offices will be part of the department, it will be easier to ensure that they remain small and streamlined. Had we replaced RHAs with separate statutory authorities, there would be a risk of building up again the bureaucracy we are committed to removing. With regional offices firmly part of the department, we can reduce duplication of work between the NHS executive and regions. In the past, there has been overlap in areas like performance management, guidance and interpretation of policy, checking of statistics, and so on. Most things will be done in the future either by regional offices or by the executive headquarters as part of the same organisation. There will be no need for them to double-check each other. This will lead to savings.

1519
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about redundancies in the National Health Service due to the changes. Perhaps I can refer to the efforts that have already been made by the regional health authorities. Of course, there will inevitably be costs associated with redundancies. We accept that; but we shall try to minimise the numbers as much as possible. The regional health authorities are making every effort to minimise the disruption to staff, using measures such as voluntary redundancies, clearing house arrangements, out-placements and retraining schemes. Where it is necessary to make staff redundant, they will receive the full financial benefits to which they are entitled. I pick up the points made by my noble friends Lord Carr and Lord Peyton that we need to get on with the business. That is particularly true in the context of staff because nothing is more demoralising than not knowing where one's future lies.
The new health authorities will be well placed to take on functions currently discharged by RHAs. Functions can be delegated to the lowest sensible level—closer to patients, so that decisions can be taken quickly in response to changes in need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, expressed concern about the move of the regional directors of public health from RHAs to regional offices. But the role of the regional directors of public health will be different in the new system. Most public health functions will be carried out by the new health authorities. They will be a much more appropriate place for public health issues than the RHAs, which are artificial entities in public health terms. District directors of public health will report on the health of their local populations and will be free to comment on the factors affecting health care in their area. The role of the regional director will be to ensure that health authorities carry out their public health role effectively. Those responsibilities will be entirely appropriate to their status as civil servants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned nurse education. I should like to address that issue on Amendment No. 11.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about post-graduate deans and regional GP advisers. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that we have today published a full consultation document which will be placed in the Library tomorrow. I believe that that will answer many of the noble Lord's misgivings and concerns.
To conclude: it is the new health authorities which will take responsibility for the public health of their populations, for planning services, for assessing health needs. They will develop an effective, primary care-led NHS. The retention of regional health authorities is not necessary for this and could well get in the way. Their abolition will save money to be reinvested in patient care. There will be savings of around £150 million per year when the Bill is fully implemented, and the bulk of this will come from the abolition of RHAs, the cutting of bureaucracy and the reduction in duplicating work. I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Rea: Before the Minister sits down will she amplify—ever so slightly—the news that she gave that
1520
there is now a document in the Library about the future of the postgraduate deans and postgraduate medical education? Will she give us an inkling of what it says?
Baroness Cumberlege: It will be placed in the Library tomorrow. It is a document which has been drawn up after a great deal of consultation with the postgraduate medical deans. It looks at the contracts of junior doctors and other issues that we shall be addressing in later amendments. Basically, it says that contracts for education should be placed with the postgraduate medical deans and contracts for their terms and conditions of service with the trusts.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask a question about the £150 million which will be saved. As parliamentarians, we are often told that we will save money, but later we never know how it has been saved. Is it the Government's intention to make reports to Parliament as to how much of the £150 million has been saved and where it has gone?
Baroness Cumberlege: We have given an undertaking that all the money that is saved will go back into patient care. Many of us rejoice at that. Clearly when it comes to the annual public expenditure survey round a great deal of detail is available to Members of this place.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I thank the Minister for giving that detailed reply to the points raised by me, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friends. The degree to which the Minister was able to give us the detail to some of the points that we raised was a clear indication that she saw that some of the points we made were serious and worthy of such a response. As she said, many of those points will be returned to in subsequent amendments. The issues, especially relating to public health and nurse education, which the Minister herself raised, will be ones which we shall discuss in detail. She may not be surprised to hear that I am not reassured totally at the moment by what she said in general about those and other specific points.
I should like to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, about the quaintness of consultation. What the Minister has just said in her response, especially to my noble friend Lord Rea, about the position the Government are now taking on postgraduate education and the role of the postgraduate deans at the regional level of health organisation is an exact and good example of the way in which consultation after the event—after a Bill is published—is achieved. We all know that when the Bill was first published grave concern was felt, especially by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of universities. The Government consulted, with the results that the Minister has been able to announce today.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was seeking to make was not that consultation in general was ridiculous, but that it could be, and it was, particularly ridiculous in the context in which she proposed it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: All I can say to the noble Lords is that the Minister has demonstrated, in particular in relation to a complicated measure such as this, that consultation after the event—after a Bill has been published, and after it has been considered, as it has in this case, by one House of Parliament—can result in an interesting and useful amendment which is not put on the face of the Bill but which is achieved by consultation outside and leads to a greater understanding and approval of the regulations by those involved. That is the simple point that I was making and the simple point that is contained in the first part of my amendment.
However, I also make the point, as Members of the Committee who were present on Second Reading will know, that we on these Benches firmly opposed the principle of the Bill, which was included in the terms of the abolition of the regional health authorities. I, as a relatively junior Member of this place do not need to remind the Committee that it is not the convention of this place to divide on Second Reading. But if speakers from the Government Benches are now suggesting that it would be appropriate for us to divide on Second Reading when we oppose the principle of a Bill, that is something which I am sure will be of great interest to many Members other than those taking part in the Committee this afternoon.
What has been demonstrated generally this afternoon in our discussion on the substance of the amendment, which of course is the substance of the principle of the Bill, is that there is—if I may call it such a thing—a philosophical divide in the Committee between those on these Benches and those on the Government Benches about the nature of the NHS. We see the abolition of the RHAs as a way of reducing standards of excellence in the NHS and of reducing the public accountability of what is one of our most important public services. For those reasons, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Avebury, L

Falkland, V..

Banks, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fitt, L.

Bottomley, L.

Freyberg, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Gladwyn, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hamwee, B

Chapple, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.[Teller.]

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Desai, L.

Hooson, L.

Diamond, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hoghes, L.

1522

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rea, L

Jay of Paddington, B.

Redesdale, L.

Jeger, B.

Richard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L

Judd, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Russell, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Scanlon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Serota, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mayhew, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thurso, V.

Monkswell, L.

Tope, L.[Teller.]

Morris of Castle Moms, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Varley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Downshire, M.

Addison, V.

Dundonald, E.

Ailsa, M.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Elles, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Annaly, L.

Elton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ferrets, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balfour, E.

Gage, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Beloff, L

Gainsborough, E.

Bethell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Birdwood, L.

Geddes, L.

Blaker, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Blyth, L.

Glenarthur, L

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray, L.

Brain of Wheatley, L.

Gridley, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cadman, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Caithness, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayter, L.

Carnock, L.

Hemphill, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hives, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hogg, B.

Chesham, L.

Holderness, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Howe, E.

Cockfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.[Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Cranborne, V.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Kimberley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Kintore, E.

Davidson, V.

Knollys, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lauderdale, E.

1523

Liverpool, Bp.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Long, V.

Richardson, L.

Lucas, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lyell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sandford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Savile, L.

Seccombe, B.

Marlesford, L

Shannon, E.

Marsh, L.

Sharples, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McConnell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McFarllane of Llandaff, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Slim, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

St. Davids, V.

Milverton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strange, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Munster, E.

Swansea, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Telviot, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norrie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Orkney, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wade of Cholrlton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wakeham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Warnock, B.

Pike, B.

Weatherill, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Rees, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Resolved in the Negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State may by order establish a Health Authority's membership to include representatives of—

(a) medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives; and

(b) other persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care.").

The noble Baroness said: I hope that I shall be able to explain the amendment as clearly as possible to the Committee. It concerns the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe the types of people who should be members of health authorities. That should not be an exclusive power but he should have the ability to prescribe who should be included on the new health authority boards.
It is an attempt to have written on the face of the Bill the necessity for professional involvement in the decision-making process of the new health service. The words relating to the people to be included are taken from Schedule 1 to the Bill. In Schedule 1 it is suggested that those are the people to whom health authorities should look for professional advice. That was as a result of an amendment proposed by the Government in another place on Report after argument on the subject in Committee. Therefore, the schedules make specific provision in relation to the advice of those people. My amendment is designed to ensure that there is a statutory
1524
duty on the new health authorities to obtain that advice by making that kind of professional expertise part of the authority.
Noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading will remember that several noble Lords wished, for example, to include nurses as members of health authority boards. This amendment seeks to provide a broader application of professional expertise involved at board level on the new health authorities. At present, such professional membership exists in family health authorities which will become, effectively, part of the new merged health authorities.
It is interesting to note that the draft guidelines which the Department of Health issued in January of this year on professional involvement in the work of the new health authorities refers to the:
"need for closer and more effective involvement by doctors, nurses and other professional staff in the full range of the work of the authorities".
The guidance goes on to state:
"Health authorities will need to demonstrate that their mechanisms are effective in terms of planning and decision making, good communication and professional understanding of local policies and strategies".
There are many examples in the draft guidance of areas in which it is intended that there will be professional input. Some of those areas appear in Annex C of the draft issued for consultation; for example, maintaining a district-wide view of healthcare purchasing; establishing ways of judging clinical effectiveness; planning health care services for people with disabilities; working on midwifery supervision and child protection measures; and looking at the whole area of mental health.
Those are obviously areas in which it is extremely important to have the right and appropriate level of input into decision-making from professionals of the type who are mentioned in the amendment. It seems to me that the simple way to achieve that is by making sure that the new health authorities are advised appropriately by precisely the people who the draft guidelines say will be extremely important to the work of the new health authorities. That can be achieved by making them members of the boards.
The amendment would not mean prescribing numbers. It may mean that the number of non-executive members may have to be increased slightly but I do not see why that is necessarily a problem. However, it slows down the process of the health authority boards being dominated, as many have been in the past few years, by people with very little practical involvement or interest in the health service.
I can speak to that from my own experience. The work of the district health authority with which I have been involved for many years has been slowed down by the involvement of people who have come in from outside with very little practical knowledge of the way in which the health service works and who show very little understanding of its mechanisms. At one stage, I asked people—I hope not in a sense of hostility—whether or not they were health service patients. It was

1525
surprising that several were not. It was surprising also that several were not involved in the local community which they were supposed to represent.
This is an attempt to try to redress the balance in that way. It is also my experience that one member of my local authority always referred to the fact that the papers and minutes were addressed in what she described as "NHS-speak"; that is, they were written in words which were often referred to and explained by the technical, medical and professional health-related issues which they were intended to cover rather than being written, as it were, for the local newspaper.
The proposal would not in any way affect the fact that the bodies which will run the local health authorities can have a broad concept of experience. It would not mean that there would need to be a prescribed number. When the Minister spoke on Second Reading in response to various noble Lords who raised the question of having people from individual professions represented on the authorities, she said that she did not like the concept of representation. I suspect that that may well be included in the Minister's reply this afternoon.
In the amendment, we are not suggesting representation of particular professional bodies; we are suggesting the inclusion of the voices of those from a professional background who can lend their expertise and experience to health authorities and who in any event, as the Bill stands, must statutorily be consulted for their advice. That is why I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Baroness explain what she believes the legal effect of her amendment would be if it were accepted? As I understand it, it merely says:
"The Secretary of State may by order establish a Health Authority's membership to include representatives"
of various professions. But surely the Secretary of State already has complete power to do so; indeed, he has power to include all those representatives in the membership of the health authority. As the amendment only purports to give the Secretary of State such authority if he so desires —"may" being the word used—surely it would have absolutely no effect if carried.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear in explaining the purpose of the amendment. The point behind the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill the necessity to include people who are already included in Schedule I as being appropriate advisers. If the noble Lord looks at line 23 of Clause 1 of the Bill, he will see that it says:
"The Secretary of State may by order",
and then various indications are given as to the way in which the Secretary of State may behave in relation to the health authorities. The amendment is simply an attempt to add to those possibilities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: But does that not amount to a statement in that all the amendment is doing is saying that the Secretary of State "may" do what in fact he can already do?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendment. In fact, it is rather in conflict with Amendment No. 13 which is tabled in my name. As the noble Baroness said, she has taken the wording from the schedule. Amendment No. 13 would alter that schedule and, consequently, the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment. I am not opposed to any of those people serving on such an authority. However, I have been approached by pharmacists who are very upset that "medical practitioners", "registered nurses" and "registered midwives" have been named in Schedule 1, whereas they are not. Therefore, I was asked to put forward an amendment which would add the word "pharmacists". I immediately declined and said that I could not do so, the reason being that the moment I did so I knew that dentists would approach me and make the same request. It seemed to me that we would then go on through all the health professions, including chiropractitioners and so on. Thus we would have ended up with a whole list of people.
Therefore, I have tabled Amendment No. 13 to Schedule 1 which would delete the whole of paragraph 3(a) as set out in the noble Baroness's amendment and the word "other" at the beginning of paragraph 3(b), so as to make representation on such boards open to any health professional. The pharmacists—and I know that the dentists would feel exactly the same—feel very much second-class citizens because doctors, nurses and midwives have been named, while they have not been. Even though, according to the terminology, they know that they would be able to participate under paragraph (b) of the schedule, they feel that preference would be given to those who are specifically named in paragraph (a) and that those people would believe that they had the right to be on the board whereas the others were just another option. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.
I should like to see persons of professional expertise being included, but I believe that they will be appointed in any case. The noble Baroness said that many of those in trusts and in health authorities have no direct health experience. However, I heard just that question today from Charter 88, regarding today's "Quango Day" meeting. A quick calculation was made. On my trust, there is a direct national health experience of over 80 years in the non-executive members of the board. Therefore, it is certainly not general practice for those on trusts to have no health background.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the other professions. However, we could not possibly have an amendment that named all the different professions. The reason for "medical practitioners", "registered nurses" and "registered midwives" being specifically mentioned is, in my view, due to their close involvement with

1527
patients in hospitals and in the community. They are in a special class compared with other expertise that relates to the health service.
During her response to the first amendment, the Minister said that the purchasing authorities, in themselves, represent the patients in the community. One cannot imagine a health authority that did not include a member of the medical profession, especially a general practitioner. In the new pattern of health care that we now have with the emphasis being on community care, the general practitioner is most important. Moreover, the nurses are the people who give 80 per cent. of the care in hospitals. They know more about what patients feel; indeed, they know more about what patients need. They are perfectly capable of contributing enormously to the purchasing question of a health authority. I would very much welcome it if the Government were to accept the amendment.
I heard from the Royal College of Nursing that there could be a problem with having a nurse representative on the board of a health authority. The reason is that it is not really permitted for a member of a board of one authority to be working for another authority. It would be very difficult for nurses to be represented on such boards because most of them are working in hospitals. I hope that the Government will consider that point and make a special allowance to ensure that nurses can be represented on the boards.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may refer back to the matter of the pharmacists. The noble Baroness said that the three groups mentioned in the amendment are those most closely connected with the community. However, I met a number of pharmacists today. They assured me that the role of the pharmacist in the community is greatly increasing. Indeed, the aim is for many patients to go first to the pharmacists before they visit their GP. That would lighten the load for general practitioners. In fact, the pharmacists ask why the regulations cannot be such that eventually the GP, through information technology, can input prescriptions directly from the practice to the pharmacy. All those measures would save time for GPs.
We have had debates in this Chamber on the increasing role in the community of pharmacists. Therefore, we must accept that they are very much a group which is directly involved with the community and, indeed, are probably more readily available to patients as regards their hours of working than is the case with most surgeries.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I have a personal interest in supporting this amendment as a registered nurse and midwife. If I have a criticism, and if I must be pedantic about words, it is the words "representatives of because the schedule states,
"Every Health Authority shall make arrangements for securing that they receive from"
the stated professions. I think that is rather different. My contention is that this matter of health authority membership is not a matter of narrow sectional interests or professional sectional interests. In the discussion in the Committee today we have heard that many different
1528
health professions have a claim as regards their interests in the work of a health authority. Nonetheless, I think that there is a strong case to be made for the professions mentioned here, and a strength in their being written onto the face of the Bill. It is not sufficient to say as regards these particular professions, which have such a large contribution to make to the disposal of resources of a health authority, that we shall take advice and receive representations from them. Those professions need to be present where the cut and thrust of decision-making takes place in the authority. Secondhand information is not sufficient. However, I hope that we shall be able to deal with this in greater detail when we discuss the schedule.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: It is important to remember—as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said—that the Secretary of State is of course presently empowered to appoint any health professional to a health authority. It would be interesting to know how many are serving on health authorities at the present time. However, the difficulty we have here is the representative aspect of this proposal. It is important that health authorities are made up of people from as wide a range of experience as possible, and also that they are tailored to suit the needs of the particular area that the health authority serves. In my view, I do not think that it would be at all helpful to be prescriptive in this matter.
Before 1991, health authorities had a number of representatives. These comprised doctors, nurses and trade union representatives and it was difficult for them, having been appointed, to leave their professional hats outside and not to allow their special interests to influence the policies that were being debated. Under the present arrangements we have a health professional on our authority; but they are not there as a representative and in no sense do they feel under any obligation to promote the interests of their own sector because they are appointed in their own individual right, and of course the professional knowledge and expertise that they bring is valuable. But as they are not a representative, they do not feel they are under any obligation.
At present, as regards advice, we take advice from a wide range of professionals, and this is extremely helpful. But that is quite a different matter to selecting an individual to sit on a health authority representing a particular profession. Incidentally, as regards the size of authorities, if a body is to be able to take decisions in an effective way, I believe that it should not comprise more than about a dozen persons as above that number the body's effectiveness immediately becomes restricted. I fully support the inclusion of health professionals on health authorities. They are of great value in an independent capacity and if they are appointed where appropriate. However, I do not support the proposal that such a requirement should be specified in the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: Reference has already been made to the words inserted into Schedule 1 in another

1529
place. However, there is of course another part of Schedule 1—namely, paragraph 59 on page 19—which is germane to this amendment. The paragraph states,
"A Health Authority shall consist of
(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;
(b) not more than a prescribed number of persons (not being officers of the Health Authority) appointed by the Secretary of State: and
(c) a prescribed number of officers of the Health Authority".
Clearly a health authority will have a chairman. However, in any health authority with which I have come in contact, the officers of the health authority to a large extent include the professionals which are described in this amendment. Therefore I believe that to a great extent this amendment would duplicate what is already in the Bill in paragraph 59.
Lord Rea: I hesitate to engage in discourse with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on terminology in a Bill because he has such vast experience; but I should like to see the word "may" replaced by "shall". As the noble Lord knows full well, "may" is frequently used in legislation and allows a certain amount of leeway. I see it as a flagging up of the fact that the Minister may appoint these categories of people, so that if he does not appoint them, it can be pointed out that he was entitled to do so. If it is not on the face of the Bill, he might be able to smooth that over and it would appear that it is not within the range of possibilities that he can appoint those categories of people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I was just pointing out that the amendment as it stands would have no legal effect whatever.
Lord Carr of Hadley: We must never lose sight of our main objective in discussing these matters, and that, surely, is to produce the smoothest working, most effective, health service that we can from the point of view of the patients—all our fellow citizens of this country—and to use every penny we possibly can on patient care out of the £30 billion-odd we devote to it, and to save every penny we can on administration, provided we get an efficient, smooth service.
As regards the functions of any board of directors or authority of this kind, there are two limiting factors. One is the size of the membership. If a body is too large, it is not a good policy-making body. I do not think I need enlarge on that. People have different ideas as regards ideal numbers. However, a figure any higher than 15 is getting dangerously high. I think anything over 10 is probably getting dangerously high. However, one must decide on a number.
As regards implicating professionals in this matter, if we are to appoint them as representatives, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and others have already pointed out, there is no end to the number of people whom we could appoint as representatives. There are different aspects to the profession and people involved in these aspects all have a great role to play in this matter, not least the pharmacists. I live in a country area and I know of the role played by pharmacists in advising people who live in a country district with a dispersed
1530
population. In my area there is a most excellent group practice but it is spread over a widely dispersed population.
Secondly, there is also the matter of whether it is right—in my view it is not right in principle—to have any board or committee packed with too many experts. I am not saying for one moment that we should exclude from membership a doctor, a nurse or a pharmacist. It would be mad not to include people with that sort of background. However, I submit that they should not be representatives. Many years ago now I had some years' experience as a member of a board of governors of one of our large London teaching hospitals. It was an admirable body but its membership was so large and so diverse that from a management point of view the body was useless. It served other purposes but it was a poor directional body. The governing body's main committees were also large and had all sorts of representatives on it. There were also some small sub-committees.
I remember very well serving on a small sub-committee which was charged with looking at rough specifications for the new St. Mary's which we hoped might be built some time in the next few decades, if not sooner. That small committee of eight people included two doctors. They were distinguished members of our staff, but because they were so busy they were seldom able to attend meetings every month. One or other might attend, but rarely both. They were highly dedicated men—both now, sadly, long since dead—who had different views. We reached the ridiculous position where we listened to one doctor one month, and the next month the other doctor attended and proposed the exact opposite of what his colleague had proposed. When we finally produced a report for the main sub-committee of the board the doctors and nurses argued about it because they could not accept that those members of our committee had the power to represent the medical view or the nurses' view.
Therefore, we must have people with relevant experience, but above all we must be free to ask such people to give evidence and to talk to us. If one has official representatives of doctors and nurses others are shy of coming. However, they must be free to come and give evidence. Once one has an official representative one is going down a very dangerous path leading to long delay and uncertainty of decision.
5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I have not been in this Chamber for a while because I have been in the hands of the National Health Service. I am enormously and wonderfully grateful to it.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is a balance. I understand that the drafters of the amendment want to see that a balance is maintained between primary and secondary healthcare. With my longstanding interest in urban priority areas, I have taken a special interest in the health divide, ever since the Black Report and much else. I am clear that if we want to remove that health divide then primary healthcare is the place where principally that has to be

1531
done. When large-scale spending is at stake, as people who work in hospitals have told me, the balance of power frequently slips from primary healthcare, however much lip service is paid to its importance.
In a city like Liverpool one can draw health on the map very easily and predictably, showing dramatic differences. Better take up of healthcare, better education, better diet and better hygiene—the issues which primary healthcare addresses—will shift the ground infinitely more than what happens in hospitals.
It is very important that the membership of the boards should be balanced and should include sufficient interest in primary healthcare in order to fight that corner.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to take up the point made by the right reverend Prelate. I have put down an amendment to amend Schedule 1 to include a representative who is involved in primary care. However. Amendment No. 2 does not make clear that the people concerned should be involved in primary care. I do not believe that the amendment covers that point.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate how best we can ensure that professional healthcare experts are fully involved in the work of health authorities.
The Committee will be aware that the Government have recently published new guidelines on appointments to health authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear our approach when she said that:
"Membership of a trust or health authority is a demanding and responsible task. I want the best people for the job: people who are unswervingly committed to the NHS and its values and who can bring the energy and skill which an evolving, dynamic health service needs."
Both professional and non-professional people can offer that skill and commitment. Those working in primary care have a particularly important contribution to make as we move towards a more primary care led NHS, and I agree with the comments of the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that many health authorities will have non-executive members with experience in primary care and, indeed, experience in the acute sector and in community care. Everyone who is suitably qualified will be welcome to apply for appointment, provided there is no conflict of interest.
There are, however, many other groups with a contribution to make. I make no apology for emphasising the value of members with financial and business skills with voluntary sector experience and with experience of representing consumers from a lay perspective.
My noble friend Lord Carr is right that it is important that the new authorities are effective decision-making bodies. For that, they must be compact and streamlined. It would not be possible, or desirable to include on every health authority a representative of all the different groups and organisations with an interest in health services. Not only would that make health authorities less effective as decision-making bodies, but it would
1532
go against our aim of ensuring that health authority members are chosen for their personal skills and abilities.
No health authority can do its job properly without involving doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors and the many other skilled professionals working in the NHS—and I include pharmacists and dentists. I fully accept the valuable personal contribution that they can make, as executive or non-executive members of authorities.
I can reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool that GPs and other primary care practitioners, will be free to apply for appointment to health authorities. That will include GP fundholders—who cannot currently be members of district health authorities, so we are widening the scope. However, it would not be appropriate for employees of trusts—including nurses—also to work for purchasers as members. We therefore agree with the Royal College of Nursing that as members nurses are more likely to make their contribution as executive members of health authorities. But of course, we welcome suitably qualified nurses as non-executives where there is no conflict of interest.
Membership is far from being the only way for professionals to be involved. That is why—in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 —referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—the Bill now places an absolute, clear statutory duty on health authorities to secure advice from medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives and other people with professional expertise in and experience of healthcare.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, quite rightly highlighted the contribution of nursing. They will agree that the Government have demonstrated in many ways their commitment to nurses, midwives and health visitors. It is relatively easy to praise the nursing profession, but we have given nurses added responsibilities and shown our trust in their professional skills. One example that I should like to highlight is nurse prescribing, an area in which I have taken a personal interest. As my noble friend Lady Gardner said when we debated the first amendment, we have made an enormous investment in nurse education and training through the introduction of Project 2000. My Changing Childbirth report acknowledged the central role played by midwives in the routine care of women during labour.
Purchasing healthcare requires innovation, understanding of health needs, sensitivity in relationships with patients and the wider public. We believe that there are many people who can bring those skills to purchasing.
My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Eccles quite rightly pointed out that the amendment before us has no practical effect. The Secretary of State is already free to appoint healthcare professionals to health authorities. She already has the power to appoint members of health authorities in general. We believe that by inserting a pointless provision there is a risk that a court might doubt the generality of the existing power.

1533
We are committed to involving a whole range of healthcare professionals in the decisions of the new health authorities. However, I do not believe that the amendment is the best way to achieve that. Therefore, I hope that the movers of the amendment will be willing to withdraw it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In some ways there is only a small distance between us. We both agree that it is vital that members of the various professions are involved, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that there would be difficulty in having an all-embracing list of everybody who would wish to be involved and who would feel that they should rightly be involved.
The distance between us is that I want to see this representation on the face of the Bill. I take the point that it has been argued that this might create a position which was nonsensical. However, having taken advice, we are seeking—in the Minister's words—to achieve the "absolute, clear statutory duty" of the health authorities to receive the advice of these people as members of those authorities. I refer Members of the Committee again to the guidance issued by the Department of Health regarding examples where professional input will be "essential"—I cite the department's word—in the new authorities. If that input is to be essential, covering such a wide range of policy and strategic decisions, how can it be achieved simply through the mechanism of advice?
Unlike other noble Lords who spoke from the other side of the Chamber, I am not shy of the concept of representation. There is a difference between us on that issue. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Can, referred to a size of authority or a decision-making body which was considerably less large than the present Cabinet as being the only effective body to take decisions.
There are some issues between us, in particular on the clear and statutory duty that we should like to see placed on the Secretary of State to achieve professional representation on the health authorities. We want to achieve such representation where decisions are taken and not simply in an advisory capacity. On that basis, I wish to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Avebury, L.

Carter, L.

Banks, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Blackstone, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

David, B.

1534

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L

Diamond, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Donoughue, L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Eatwell, L

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ogmore, L.

Fitt, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B

Robson of Kiddington, B

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Haskel, L.[Teller.]

Russell, E..

Hollis of Heigham, B

Seen, B.

Hooson, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi. L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Kinloss, Ly.

Thurso, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tope, L.[Teller.]

Liverpool, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Varley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Mallalieu, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

White, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cross, V.

Addison, V

Cumberlege, B.

Ailsa, M.

Davidson, V.

Aldington, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Denham, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Downshire, M.

Balfour, E.

Dundonald, E

Bethell, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B

Birdwood, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blaker, L.

Elles, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blyth, L.

Elton, L.

Boardman L.

Faithfull, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gage, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Broadbridge, L

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Geddes, L.

Cadman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnegy of Lour B.

Goschen, V.

Carnock, L

Gray, L.

Cam of Hadley, L.

Greenway, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gridley, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Clanwilliam, E.

Marylebone, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Halsbury, E

Courtown, E

Harding of Petherton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cranborne, V.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Harmsworth, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hemphill, L.

1535

Henley, L

Orr-Ewing, L

Hives, L

Oxfuird, V.

Hogg, B

Perry of Southwark, B.

Holderness, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L

HolmPatrick, L

Pike, B.

Howe, E

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B

Rankeillour, L.

Inglewood, L.[Teller.]

Rees, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L

Kimberley, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Savile, L..

Kintore, E.

Seccombe, B.

Knollys, V.

Sharpies, B.

Lauderdale, E

Shaw of Northstead, L

Layton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Slim, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lyell, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Strange, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Strathcarron, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swinfen, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mountevans, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Newall, L.

Ullswater, V.

Nickson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Norrie, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Northesk, E.

Weatherill, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1 line 14, at end insert ("and those areas shall, so far as is practicable, be of equivalent population size and coterminous with local authority boundaries").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself. It addresses the issue of the size of the new health authorities and is designed primarily to try to obtain information from the Government about how they see the organisation of the health authorities, particularly in relation to their coterminosity with local authorities and councils.
As we know, the mood within the health service is to achieve what is becoming known as primary care-led purchasing. It will obviously include a great deal of community care which involves local social service bodies and other organisations, particularly in the voluntary sector. Previously, they often related more to local authorities than to local health authorities.
The amendment is also an attempt to address the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on the previous amendment about the so-called health divide. The question is whether it will no longer be the case—if we can achieve relative coterminosity both in relationship to local councils and local population sizes—that what you obtain in terms of
1536
some services, particularly community care, can sometimes depend on where you live and not on what you need.
Members of the Committee will remember that at Second Reading many of us were concerned with the issues which relate inequality of wealth to inequality of health. Difficulties occur when health authorities are simply related to a particular type of population; they may have problems in addressing the broad spectrum of healthcare. At the moment there are 111 district health authorities and 90 family health service authorities. As I understand it, in the end, when reorganisation has gone through, there will probably be 80 or 90 health authorities—the new HAs. These will have no regional responsibilities, only responsibility for the local area.
It is of great importance that the health authority areas should be roughly of the same geographic and population size. As the amendment says, that can only be done,
"so far as is practicable".
I hope that that will be more practicable, particularly in some wider urban areas, than in the past.
It is easier to arrange the kind of community care we all hope to see if there is a close relationship between the areas which are organising social care and those which organise healthcare. Later, under a further amendment, we shall discuss the National Health Service responsibility for continuing care. Noble Lords who took part in our earlier debates on the subject will know the clear necessity for close co-operation between social services and health authorities if community care is to be successful. That is particularly important in dealing with problems which reflect the health divide in terms of population income and population health.
When we discussed the matter on earlier occasions, there was general agreement around the House that the so-called healthy alliances, very much underlined in the policy in The Health of the Nation, are much easier to organise if they are carried out at a local level with health, social services, voluntary sector bodies, charities and education bodies all working towards the same end. We see that clearly when we consider the issues which relate to questions of poverty and health. But they also relate clearly to issues related to health education and health promotion.
If we end up with health authorities which are variable, both in the size of their population and their relationship to local authorities, it seems that the objectives of achieving equity and effectiveness, particularly in the areas of primary and community care, will not be achieved. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it is an aim of the detailed reorganisation that there should be an attempt to achieve both a sense of coterminosity with local authorities and relative equality in terms of population. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell me exactly what "coterminosity" means? Does it mean that the two areas end at the same point? If not, what does it mean?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I suspect from the expression on the noble Lord's face that, like me, he

1537
regards "coterminosity" as a rather ugly term. If that is the case, I agree with him. As I understand it, "coterminosity" in terms of this amendment and local government means that two authorities are responsible for social policy for different parts under the same umbrella of care—for example, healthcare in its broadest sense and, as I emphasised, community care and primary care. They are organised by bodies which have a responsibility for the same geographic area. I give an example from my experience in west London. For many years I was a member of a health authority which had the entirely arbitrary name of Parkside. The name did not relate in any sense to the local authorities who organised social services. Since the reorganisation in the past few years, the health authority is now known as Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority. It directly relates to those local councils who have responsibility for local social services in the same area as the health authority.
Lord Tope: The noble Baroness has explained "coterminosity" very well. It means the same authorities having the same boundaries. I intervene at this stage with my experience of local government rather than of the health service. That is why I wish to support the amendment. Increasingly, local authorities have to work and wish to work in partnership with many other agencies in the context of the Bill, particularly in the field of community care. It has been the bane of the lives of local authorities that other authorities such as health authorities not only have names which are meaningless to most of the public and to many of their members but also have quite different boundaries. We still find that in a number of areas different authorities working in the community who need to work together have different boundaries. It is confusing for the public and often also for the authorities themselves to know who is responsible for what.
This is a simple and straightforward amendment. It is so obviously right that I share the wish of the noble Baroness that the Minister should tell us that the Government accept the amendment or, at the very least, its spirit. I fear that if the proposal does not apply when the further reforms come into effect, it will be a recipe for further confusion which need not arise. I support the amendment.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My impression, ever since the reforms began, has been that the Government's aim is to achieve coterminosity wherever possible. A great deal has happened in that direction. I have had experiences similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, where my district has become coterminous and our work has become a great deal easier.
However, we must remember that England is not made up of neat and tidy parcels either of population or territory. Therefore, to make it prescriptive that health authorities should in future be coterminous with local authorities would be a pity. I know that the words,
"so far as is practicable",
1538
are included in the amendment, but it would be a pity because it seems to me that there is no need for it.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: We do not intend to be prescriptive in any way about the population size of the new health authorities in this Bill. As with district health authorities, the size of an authority will be dictated by what is required for it to discharge its responsibilities effectively, and this may vary according to local circumstances.
However desirable, it would not be practical to prescribe that each health authority is coterminous with a local authority. The size considered best for the performance of local government functions in one area may well be rather smaller than that which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health decides is the optimum for the new health authority as a strategic purchaser of health care.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, both Care in the Community and The Health of the Nation require health and local authorities to work closely together, and, as we move towards a primary care led NHS, there will be even more opportunities for joint working. An important part of assessing and meeting the health care needs of a population will be the effectiveness with which a health authority relates to other local bodies, particularly local authorities. However, although common boundaries with local authorities can contribute to successful joint working, it does not guarantee success—the key is a commitment to working together to share objectives, information and plans. As my noble friend Lady Eccles said, England is not neat and tidy, and therefore we do not consider it appropriate to include in the Bill a provision on the size of health authorities in relation to local authorities. We must allow regional offices the flexibility to meet differing local circumstances. Regions have been charged with developing a clear view about the desirable size for the new health authorities to ensure effective collaboration with other agencies, and to be responsive to local people and their health needs. The views of the local population and interested organisations will be sought through public consultation on the boundaries of the new health authority. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will then decide on the boundaries of the new health authorities.
The size and shape of health authorities must be determined by what is best for the purchasing of health care. Having the same population base as local authorities is not necessarily always the answer. On this basis, I am therefore unable to accept an amendment which might jeopardise the ability of a health authority to carry out its functions effectively. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Before my noble friend sits down, can she expand a little further her comments on boundaries? I understand very clearly why it would not be practicable or desirable to go for equality or near-equality in population sizes. I can also understand quite clearly why it would not be possible to have one health authority for one local authority. However, I do

1539
find it difficult to understand why a health authority's boundaries would have to cut across and through a number of local authority boundaries.
Baroness Cumberlege: It would certainly be our intention to avoid that problem. But I know, for example, an area in Surrey very well where there is an anomaly that we believe will be very hard to put right immediately. All that we suggest is that there should be more flexibility and more room for judgment than this amendment allows, which suggests that each health authority ought to have a population of similar size and always be coterminous, where practical, with a local authority.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. Given the terms in which the amendment is couched, stating as it does,
"so far as is practicable, be of equivalent population size and coterminous with local authority boundaries",
I would not have described it as necessarily prescriptive. The illustrations that have been given suggest that there is a need for (I hesitate to use this word again) some degree of coterminosity, particularly, as the Minister said, in the further development of primary care and local purchasing. If we have anomalies whereby there is such a disjunction between a local social services authority responsible for one part of care and a local health authority responsible for-another, we shall simply continue the argument that is going on at the moment, much to the detriment of patients and those who use the health service, about who is responsible for looking after them at different stages.
However, I take the points that were raised about the difficulties of laying down the particular areas of England in small and neat boundaries. That was not intended to be the point of the amendment. As I say, it was intended to convey the hope that by achieving, where practicable, equivalent population size and coterminosity, we could achieve greater equity of services, and greater equity particularly between local and health authorities. Having heard what the Minister said, I will think about the matter further. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page1 line 23, after ("may") insert ("following consultation with the appropriate local authorities, Community Health Councils and other relevant bodies").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we return to the subject that we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 1; namely, the importance of consultation. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not in his place. Noble Lords will remember that, when we discussed consultation previously, the noble Lord described the idea as "quaint". I was minded to look up the definition of quaint in the Oxford Dictionary. One definition is, "daintily odd". I did wonder whether there was anything faintly subliminal in the choice of that specific word, meaning as it does "daintily odd", by that particular noble Lord.
In moving this amendment I should like to present the general argument in favour of consultation as described in the amendment, and then give two particular examples which are known to me and which show why, in the area in which I live, consultation on the health service is, I am afraid, regarded as a farce.
This is yet another major change. I return to the point that was made when we discussed the first amendment. This is not just a planned development that was foreseen when the 1990 Act was passed. It is another major change, and should be treated as such. That is, of course, why we have a Bill before Parliament in which to deal with it. Any noble Lords who were involved in the 1990 Act will remember how we tabled amendments asking the Government to consult and to try out the various ideas, which were supported at the time by all the Royal Colleges. But at the time they were rejected and the whole thing was done in one fell swoop overnight. And we know the result.
There are a number of ways in which the Government go through the motions of consultation. One is to request consultation and then give very short deadlines for reply. If my memory serves me right, when consultation was begun on the community care part of the 1990 Act, the consultees were given only a very few weeks in which to reply.
The amendment mentions the local authorities, the community health councils, and so on. It is important, because of the danger of overlap (or duplication) between health authorities and the local social services on such matters as community care, that where such a danger exists, there should be the form of consultation for which we ask.
In Section 5 of the 1990 Act there is a duty that the community health councils and the local authorities should be consulted about trusts. It would be interesting to know from the Minister why such consultation was thought to be important in 1990 in relation to National Health Service trusts but is apparently not required under the terms of this Bill. We also have to bear in mind the likely effect on local authorities of the proposed boundary changes. Consultation is required to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication.
The report of the House of Commons Health Select Committee on priority setting in the NHS, published in January, also stressed the importance of consultation. The report contained some useful recommendations; namely, that the statutory requirements for consultation over health plans should be brought into line with those for community care plans at the earliest opportunity; that purchasers should seek the views of community health councils during the formulation of protocols; that health authorities should demonstrate that they have a systematic approach to consultation relating to strategic development, specific health issues, service shifts, purchasing plans and promoting healthy lifestyles; and evidence of communication and consultation with different local groups to take account of their needs. I think we all agree that health authorities should be as open as possible in consulting citizens and consumers about the service that they provide. We also think that they should publish plans about how they have consulted consumers and their representatives in

1541
identifying the health needs of their area. For all those reasons we feel that the Bill should include the requirement for consultation specified in the amendment, and as indeed was laid down by the 1990 Act.
I now move from the general to the particular. I do not apologise for this. Often in this Chamber we deal with the wider issues which concern the principles of a Bill, but it helps occasionally to look at specific local issues to see how they effect the patients (not the "consumers") on the ground. Let me give two examples that concern hospital and ancillary services in my home locality, which has a medical catchment area of some 35,000 people. When the replanning started six years ago in 1989, it was declared that there would be a new community hospital to replace the old district hospital. Plans were deposited in March 1993 and the planning authority was shown the community hospital. Further plans were deposited earlier this year in 1995 but any mention of a community hospital was omitted. Instead, for the first time, a link road was shown with the possibility of building over 200 houses on what had been planned as the hospital site. That was a health trust which was working to commercial imperatives and could see the chance of using development land to provide the money for other developments in the area in the health service at the expense of the promise of a local community hospital. I shall not go into the detail but the local community feels that consultation is a farce.
We know that in September 1994 a business plan was produced. It was kept secret. It went into some detail and showed the favoured option which was to close a number of community hospitals and to build one new hospital on another site. The plan was kept completely under wraps. There was an attempt to send it for a full costing analysis. When, earlier this year, it became clear that that was likely to happen and that all the promises that had been made were about to be broken, the health authority decided to set up a consultation exercise with local groups in the area. As can be imagined, that was met with contempt. Although it was denied, the decision had obviously been taken internally for commercial and not for health reasons. In fact, Devizes Town Council (where I live) wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for his help with this matter. It was pointed out that before any of the consultations started:
"The Regional Office of the NHS Executive has been asked to approve the preferred option … which … will mean the loss of our Community hospital of 49 beds and all supporting services. This is to be replaced by a 15 bed hospital building providing only respite care and accommodation for terminally ill patients … In six years we shall have lost all our Health Services in a town with a catchment area of 35,000".
I have deliberately given an example to show that if we are going to have consultation, it should actually mean something. The health authorities should not now start to go through the motions of a consultation without revealing that their minds have already been made up, however much they might say the opposite.
In the same area, and the same health district, there was another example of the disastrous effect of ignoring the wishes of the local people. A highly effective
1542
hospital laundry operated in the area. It had won the tender for the work in the future. The tendering process was then rigged to ensure that, although it was the lowest tender, the work would in fact go to Swindon. I shall not go into great detail into what happened. A number of people were made unemployed as a result of the closure of the local laundry. There is now a situation in that health district in which the patients in Bath are requested to bring their own sheets to the hospital; patients have to go outside to purchase baby linen; there has almost been the closure of a number of catering departments, as there are no clean aprons; and the contract has been lost from a private nursing home. There were photographs in the local press of a three to four week pile-up of hospital dirty laundry which eventually had to be discarded because it was ruined and there were complaints from Oxford hospital about the level of service. Finally, a spokesman from the health trust appeared on HTV on Thursday 9th March. He stated that the only way that the hospital could continue with operations was by going out and buying new linen.
Those examples are local and particular but they can be repeated around the country. They show that it is important not just to have the consultation requested by this amendment, but to ensure that it means something and that the wishes of the local people are listened to. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I rise briefly to support this amendment, which in many ways speaks for itself. In the previous debate we were talking about the extent to which local and health authorities now work together, particularly in the field of community care. To me it seems inconceivable that the Minister or the Government would seek to vary, change or even abolish a health authority without consulting the relevant local authorities in that area who have been or would be working with that health authority.
But there is another reason why this amendment deserves to be supported. In part perhaps that is what the noble Lord who has just spoken was referring to. For better or worse, local authorities are now the only democratically elected bodies in the areas concerned. That is not to say that that is the sole and only way of consulting the public; nor should it be. Nevertheless, they are the only bodies that can claim legitimately to represent the whole of public opinion. That is another reason why they deserve to be consulted and indeed should be consulted before any such changes go ahead.
Similarly, the community health councils work closely with the health authorities and scrutinise them. It is hard to conceive that changes as envisaged in this clause of the Bill would go ahead without consultation with community health councils. If that is the Government's intention—I wish to believe that it is—I can see that it would do no harm. They would certainly give reassurance to those of us who need it by accepting this amendment.
Let me add a word about the nature of the consultation. Too often when local authorities are consulted, the time allowed for a response is ludicrously short. For matters of such importance, local authorities need time to be able to consult their communities, to get

1543
a proper response and not least to go through the inevitable committee cycle. The same is possibly even more true of community health councils, whose members are in every sense voluntary and where time is more limited. So, rather than simply pay lip service to this amendment if, as I hope, it is accepted, I urge the Government, in their consultation both on this measure and generally, to allow proper time for meaningful consultation and meaningful responses. If they do, I am sure that at the end the decisions will be very much better for it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I welcome any opportunity that I have to agree cordially with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I wrote down his exact words:
"if we are going to have consultation, it should actually mean something".
I agree totally; but I should like to add a rider and ask whether he will co-operate with me in reaching agreement: the more consultation you have, the less it is likely to mean.
People become extremely bored with consultation. I wish that those who are constantly advocating more and more consultation would ask themselves this question: what would those who are taking part in the exercise be doing if they were not consulting? It is just possible that they might be doing something much more useful. Because I believe that to be very likely, I hope very much that my noble friend, despite the eloquence of the noble Lord opposite, will reject the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find this a strange amendment in that it asks the Secretary of State to do all the consulting. A lot of consultation takes place now but it is not direct consultation by the Secretary of State. It is done by other people—tiers further down—who are in much more direct contact with groups.
Our trust has a "learning from patients" system, which we find immensely useful. The patients say what they find good and bad in the service that is being given and they say what they want to see. There are several meetings every year with community health councils. There are now consultations going on at all levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned that there was, perhaps, too much consultation. I usually agree with the National Consumer Council, but recently it wrote to me suggesting that we have a consultation about the form that consultation should take, which should be published in the newspaper. The extra layers that are being added and the times and delays are excessive. I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: In the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place my honourable friend the Minister for Health made it clear that the NHS will carry out consultation on the boundaries of the new health authorities. We believe that the public must be kept informed and given the opportunity to comment on any major changes that will affect the delivery of health services. My honourable friend also gave an undertaking that there would be no change in the requirement for health authorities to consult community health councils.
1544
Regulations will continue to require authorities to consult CHCs on proposals which would involve substantial changes in the provision of health services.
We—and the NHS—recognise that key local bodies such as CHCs and local authorities may have practical and constructive comments to make which will affect decisions on boundaries. I do not consider that it is essential for the duty to consult to be enshrined in legislation. We have already demonstrated our commitment to consultation by consulting on every boundary change since 1990 even though the 1990 Act removed the statutory duty to consult. It is our intention to continue to consult on boundary changes in most circumstances. That is sensible management practice.
I refute the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that consultation is an empty process—I believe he described it as a "farce". I do not believe it is. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Peyton that plans have been changed as a result of consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was absolutely right in bringing us back to the purpose of the amendment, which is not so much about health services, but that,
"The Secretary of State may, by order, vary a Health Authority's area, abolish a Health Authority or establish a new Health Authority".
It is looking at health authorities as an administrative entity.
We have made changes; for example, the consultation that we carried out when we were reducing the number of regional health authorities from 14 to eight and when the boundaries were changed in Cumbria before the orders were laid before Parliament. It is not therefore the Government's intention to ignore consultation.
My main objection to the amendments is not that they oblige us to consult; it is that they make no distinction between large and small changes. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton that it is important for consultation to concern serious issues and changes that really matter to people. There must be a distinction between those and others that make no difference at all.
I am fearful that we will lose flexibility if health authorities have to waste time consulting on every little change. They should be spending their time on more important things, like consulting the public on their purchasing plans and on proposals for service development. There is a real danger of overburdening people with consultation documents instead of focusing on what matters most.
Parliament agreed in the 1990 Act to remove the requirement to consult on health authority boundary changes. It did that to streamline procedures and to give us flexibility if we needed it. To give one example, a health authority may want to make a small change to its boundary to keep in line with its local authority. That is a sensible thing to do which avoids confusion. Very few people will be interested in that though the health authority will want to make sure that the handful of people affected—the local authority, the community health council, perhaps a couple of local GPs —know what is happening. A public consultation on such a change would be completely over the top and it would probably put the health authority off proposing the change at all.

1545
On that basis I am not able to accept these amendments which would remove necessary flexibility for no good purpose.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On a point of information, perhaps I can say to the Committee that I referred to the National Consumer Council. It may be that it was the Consumers' Association; I would not want to attribute the information to the wrong source.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. As he emphasised, local authorities are now the only link with democratic election to show what people want to happen in the health service.
I was interested by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He seemed to face both ways when he both accepted and rejected the amendment in the same sentence, which was very quaint.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I dislike the idea that I left the noble Lord in any doubt because that would be an extremely uncomfortable state for him to be in. In my most friendly desire to agree with him as far as I could, I said that I accepted what he said—that if we are to have consultation it must be meaningful. But I asked him to agree with me in certain other respects. In case the noble Lord is in any doubt, I reject totally his amendment and I hope that my noble friend will do the same.
Lord Carter: The support that the noble Lord gave me was similar to the support that he often gives to his own Front Bench. To be serious on this point for a moment, consultation goes badly wrong—I deliberately used the examples from my own locality—when people refuse to attend the consultation process because they feel that it is a waste of time. It was very badly handled in my area.
The amendment is worded in the way that it is because of the wording in the Bill, which says that,
"The Secretary of State may by order (a) vary a Health Authority's area; (b) abolish a Health Authority; or (c) establish a new Health Authority".
That is a wide-ranging power and we felt that it was important that the organisations specified in the amendment should at least be given the chance to consult.
The Minister mentioned the undertaking in regard to boundaries, which is the least the Government can do, and also that it would be the Minister's intention to consult the community health councils where substantial changes are involved. But who decides what is substantial? Obviously it would be the Minister.
I did not say that consultation was a farce; I said that the people in my area now regarded it as a farce on account of what happened in the examples that I gave. The Minister made a fair point that the amendment makes no distinction between a small and a large change. But if she is prepared to accept the principle, we can easily come back with a reworded amendment.
1546
However, we have heard the words "streamlined" and "flexibility" before; they mean centralisation and quangos.
I do not think that I shall be able to change the Government's mind. I do not propose to divide the Committee on this amendment, but we shall return to the important point of consultation at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert:
("() that no area for which a Health Authority acts extends into the area of two or more Regional Health Authorities in existence immediately before the passing of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 5 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will be delighted to know that it does not involve consultation, whether of a quaint kind or any other.
The amendment is designed to elicit information on the types of area the Government intend to prescribe for the new health authorities. As when we debated Amendment No. 3, we are concerned to establish at an early stage, before this becomes something about which we may have to struggle to consult, that information is available about the size and nature of the new health authorities. It will clearly be of enormous importance to local communities, particularly in the areas of the divide between social and health care, to which I referred on an earlier amendment.
We should like to know precisely what will be the defining limits of the purchasing authorities which are to come into existence? How wide will their purchasing power be? The Secretary of State for Health said in an earlier debate on the Bill that we obviously want smaller and more effective decision-making working bodies. Yet there is a suggestion that some of the health authorities—the new purchasing organisations—will cover considerably larger areas than those of the present commissioning agencies.
How will they be able to combine? As the Minister suggested in her answer to the previous amendment, if they are not coterminous with local borough or district authorities, how broad will the combination be allowed to go? Could the possibility arise that it would not simply cross the boundaries of local authorities and those of previously existing commissioning agencies, but would also cover the area which embraces the boundary between the previously existing regional health authorities? That would obviously lead to an even greater dislocation of services than we have discussed before on earlier amendments.
One of the problems which the Government must acknowledge about the existence of these larger commissioning agencies is that in a sense they are looking for someone to fulfil the strategic function which, as we argued earlier on the first amendment, was most satisfactorily fulfilled by the old RHAs. If we are to have what are in a sense reorganised regional health authorities under another name—I realise that they will not have the same powers—and if they are to extend

1547
over large areas and to be able to commission services on a very wide basis for a very large number of people, are the Government in fact seeking to achieve some of that strategic overview, which we feel was more satisfactorily fulfilled by the old regional health authorities, in these new health authorities with their very unclearly defined boundaries? How will the existence of these much larger commissioning agencies sit with the Secretary of State's welcome assertion that she wants smaller, more effective decision-making working bodies?
Perhaps I may, without trespassing too far beyond the precise bounds of this amendment, also ask the Minister to comment about the precise area which the regional offices of the new bodies will include. As she will know, there is considerable concern in the Yorkshire and Northern region that this area will be as large as Scotland and also in the south and west that the merger of the South West and Wessex RHA will create for a regional office an area which will stretch from Portsmouth to Penzance.
The idea behind proposing the amendment is to invite the Government to explain slightly more clearly than they have done before how broad these areas for local health authorities will be, how wide their powers of commissioning will become and how they will be able to combine. As we say in the amendment, we hope to establish that they will not be so broad as to cover an area which extends beyond the bounds of an old regional health authority. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: We do not intend to be prescriptive about the configuration, size or boundaries of the new health authorities in the Bill. As with the district health authorities, the size of the new authorities will be dictated by what is required for them to discharge their responsibilities effectively, and this may vary according to local circumstances. For instance, what suits a largely rural authority such as Norfolk may not suit inner city Newcastle. I do not consider it appropriate to include a comment on the size or shape of health authorities in the Bill. We must allow regional offices the flexibility to meet differing local circumstances.
As the Committee is aware, regional health authorities will be replaced by regional offices of the NHS Executive in April 1996. The regional offices will be responsible for the health authorities within their area and that area will be formed from the boundaries of the health authorities. We envisage that regional offices will be responsible for a similar area to RHAs. The actual area will, of course, be subject to consultation and the decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. We cannot bind that process by stipulating that boundaries must be within extant regional health authority boundaries.
Regions have been charged with developing a clear view about the desirable size and shape of the new health authorities to ensure effective collaboration with other agencies. They will be responsive to local people and their health needs. The views of the local population
1548
and interested organisations will be sought through public consultation on the boundaries of the new health authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will then make a decision on the boundaries themselves.
I am unable to accept the amendment which we feel might jeopardise the ability of a health authority to carry out its functions effectively. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am disappointed by the sense I am getting from her responses that she regards the word "prescription" as being something which is an anathema to her. What we are suggesting in several of these amendments is not some form of prescription in a totalitarian sense but simply a clarity of purpose on the face of the Bill rather than leaving so much in the hands of the Secretary of State or indeed in the regulations which, as we know, are couched in very general terms. We shall return to the subject of how those regulations are couched when we come to a later amendment.
It is obvious that one cannot prescribe the way in which the health authorities will be ordered in terms of their individual boundaries. That is not what we are asking for. We are asking for clarity about the size and the overall perspective for commissioning of each individual health authority. However, I understand that the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment and so I shall not pursue it at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("() No order shall be made under subsection (1) above until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the establishment of Health Authorities proposed by that order is such as to ensure that the provision of long term health care will meet the needs of the population of each local area.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment raises an important subject which we have debated in the House on several occasions. It is designed to make explicit the responsibility for purchasing long-term care from health authorities and not local authorities, where, as your Lordships will know, it would be means tested. We bring forward the amendment partly because of the considerable importance that attaches to the responsibility for health authorities in this area and also because we would like to debate with the Minister the new guidelines on this subject which have been published in the past few weeks and which, like so much of health service organisation and administration, have not been brought before Parliament.
The Committee will remember the interesting and important debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke on this subject before Christmas when we were looking at the draft guidelines on continuing care and where we identified —this was identified all round the House—considerable confusion about the nature of responsibility for this particularly important

1549
area. As I said at the beginning, what we are attempting to do by this amendment is to make that responsibility explicit.
The background to the subject is that as regards continuing care, health service beds for this important service have fallen in the past three years from 73,000 to 59,000. That is happening at a time when people are living longer and where there is even greater need for the proper kind of long-term care, particularly for the frail elderly but also for the young and disabled. The fall in the number of beds has been called by authoritative people a stealthy withdrawal of free healthcare. As noble Lords who have taken part in previous debates and Questions on this subject will know, it has led to very bitter controversy between many local authorities, which feel that they are inadequately funded to deal with the social aspects of what they would think of as being healthcare. It has led to what is called cost shunting and there have been particular concerns about early discharge from NHS acute care hospitals into the community and into primary care situations where there is little back-up and very little concern for the social care which would be offered, it is to be hoped, by a local authority.
The new regulations have now been published and they have been distributed widely in the NHS. I must say that they are a very great improvement on the previous draft document. I particularly welcome the words in the document that until explicit criteria are established between local health authorities and local authorities no health authority should reduce its services any further or alter its hospital discharge procedures. Noble Lords will remember that when we debated this subject there was considerable concern about the lack of clarity with regard to hospital discharge and particularly the criteria for qualifying under the regulations for free healthcare.
As I say, the new regulations are much clearer. The rule of thumb (if one can call it that) for qualifying for National Health Service care seems to be now that a patient who needs that kind of care must need consultant supervision from a doctor who is at senior level—in other words, once a week. At least that establishes a line of medical responsibility which is much more helpful than before.
However, there are still considerable queries about it. The considerable queries revolve particularly around nursing care and whether or not, for example, a 24-hour nursing care requirement for somebody who is in their home or somebody who might be regarded as in a convalescent home of any kind, is in or out of the qualifying criteria. That is of particular importance in areas like big cities, particularly in London, where it is very difficult to find placements for nursing in what one used to call convalescent care situations.
There is also the problem about the clear criteria which, according to the new document, must be agreed between local authorities and health authorities. But there is not the sense in which there is national guidance on this which many noble Lords who took part in the earlier debates were very concerned to achieve. What I fear that this will continue to lead to, unless we have
1550
the kind of explicit assurances which this amendment addresses, is that there will be grave inequities between different local authorities and local health authorities. Where one has a good working relationship between a local health authority and a local social services department and there is a certain amount of flexibility in the local budget, one will get one kind of service and in another area where there is no appropriate consultation or a good working relationship between the local health authority and the local social services department, the situation may break down in the way which has been highlighted rather dramatically and appallingly in many cases recently, and which have been shown by the media.
The other issue which is another improvement in the new regulations is the establishment of independent panels to decide the kind of disputes which may arise when there is not a good working relationship between social services and health authorities. Although the independent panel will exist, if there are no touchstones of national eligibility criteria which seem to be the necessary framework for making this kind of decision-making work in a National Health Service, it is very difficult to see what touchstone the independent panel will use to decide whether a case is legitimate or otherwise.
That is the basic point about the whole issue of continuing care; namely, that if we are to retain the necessary characteristics of a National Health Service with equity of medical care and social care across the wide variety of different populations and different kinds of communities which the National Health Service services, we must ask that there are national criteria to establish what a patient and his or her family can expect from the health services.
The Royal College of Nursing has reinforced that by saying that nationally determined criteria should be set down rather than local standards. It has also drawn attention to the problems where one gets one set of services in one authority which appear to be means-tested, and in another they appear to be legitimately free.
The amendment would clearly identify the new health authorities as having the responsibility for purchasing continuing care for their local population. It would clarify the current confusion faced by many patients and their carers, and potential patients, who still believe that the NHS is withdrawing from its responsibility to provide a free and comprehensive health service. The Government would do a great deal to advance the change that they have made in publishing these new guidelines which, as I say, are a considerable improvement—indeed, it is difficult to imagine they came from the same authors as the previous guidelines—if they accept this amendment and agree to establish a very clear responsibility on the new health authorities for this particularly difficult and yet very crucial part of the National Health Service. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: It is our belief that this amendment is unnecessary as health authorities are

1551
already responsible for setting local priorities in response to local needs and circumstances, and there is a clear obligation on them to secure a full range of services to meet the needs of their population.
We are determined that all health authorities should properly discharge their responsibilities in this area. That is why we took extremely seriously the report which the Health Service Commissioner published last year which criticised the failure of one health authority in this respect. As a result we issued guidance to health authorities in February of this year making clear their responsibilities in this area. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her gracious comments on their improvement over the draft guidance.
The key objectives of the present guidance are, first, it unambiguously reminds health authorities that it is a fundamental responsibility of the NHS to arrange and fund services to meet people's needs for continuing healthcare from the cradle to the grave. Secondly, it requires all health authorities to review their current arrangements. They should draw up policies and eligibility criteria for continuing healthcare and where significant gaps in provision exist they should take action to fill these. The guidance offers a further opportunity to strengthen collaboration between health and local authorities. Thirdly, it sets out a detailed national framework which all health authorities must reflect in their local arrangements. This should lead to much greater consistency across the country in how these issues are handled while preserving an appropriate level of local flexibility to respond to local needs. Fourthly, it reinforces the special care which is required in making decisions about hospital discharge for frail and vulnerable people who are likely to need continuing intensive support, whether on a long-term basis or on a short-term basis, to aid rehabilitation and recovery.
Finally, it encourages greater openness in how decisions about continuing healthcare are taken. Local policies and eligibility criteria will be subject to public consultation. They will be published with details included in community care charters. From April 1996 patients who consider eligibility criteria have not been correctly applied in their case will have the right to ask the health authority to review their case.
This guidance is a key priority for the NHS. The NHS executive will monitor implementation of the guidance to ensure that all health authorities do arrange and fund a full range of services to meet continuing healthcare needs for their local population although some of the public coverage of this issue has perhaps been clouded in that the NHS has never been responsible for meeting all needs for continuing care. Ever since the beginning of the welfare state in 1948, there has been a division of responsibility between the NHS and local authority social services.
Our concern, similar to that of other governments in the past, has been to ensure that health and local authorities work together across the boundary to provide an integrated and effective response to people's needs. That has been one of the driving forces of the new community care arrangements and in particular of the agreements which we have required local authorities and health authorities to reach on their respective
1552
responsibilities for continuing care and on hospital discharge. The guidance on continuing care builds on this further.
In conclusion, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Health authorities are already responsible for securing a range of services to meet the continuing healthcare needs of their local population. The Government are taking significant steps to ensure that health authorities do adequately discharge their responsibilities and that they work together effectively in meeting the needs of people who need continuing support. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said in my opening remarks, I am encouraged by the new guidance which is going out to local health authorities and the new health authorities. I suspect that the basis of my concern is the one which I have raised quite often in discussion with the noble Baroness. It is the question of how one achieves the sort of equity and kind of standards which I am sure that she and her right honourable friend want to see achieved, without any kind of national standards or national criteria for local health authorities to work to.
It is difficult from a ministerial perspective to imagine the difficulties which may be faced by local people working in this very complicated field, and often dealing with very difficult and sometimes rather tragic cases, to be able to rationalise and perhaps even justify to themselves decisions which may seem rather harsh or difficult whether on a medical or a social care basis. It would be helpful if they could have some national criteria and national standards. They could then take comfort from the fact that decisions had been made on the basis of a national policy as a way of establishing continuing standards for the National Health Service.
As I said, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister is relying on the new guidelines. We shall have to monitor them closely and hope that they work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("Strategic Health Planning Authority for London
8A.—(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a Strategic Health Planning Authority for the region of London.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority established under subsection (1) above to direct activities of the London regional offices of the National Health Service.
(3) The membership of the Authority shall be established in accordance with Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act.
(4) In this section "the region of London" means the area of the London Boroughs.".").
The noble Baroness said: I have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 8, which stands in my name. When introducing the Bill on Second Reading, the Minister said that it put the finishing touches on the present reforms of the National Health Service. Therefore, this is probably our last opportunity to consider the problems

1553
facing London. I hope that we shall not have any more health service Bills, given that this is supposed to be applying the finishing touches to the present reforms.
I believe that we must look at the problems of London specifically. As Members of the Committee know, I was chairman of one of the metropolitan regions covering London in 1974 when the four metropolitan regions were established. Each region covered an enormous outlying area. Indeed, the whole of south-east England was divided between those four regions. We grew up in the period when the effects of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) began to be applied. That was when the metropolitan regions lost out in terms of resources to regions in other parts of the country which had been doing badly before. That happened because the metropolitan regions were considered to be rich—although they are not really. The outlying areas may be rich, but London is certainly not one of the well endowed regions when it comes to the provision of National Health Service services for its population.
I remember that only a year or two after the introduction of the regional health authorities many of us in those authorities discussed the problems of trying to make sense of health provision in London. We wondered why we could not have one regional health authority to cover greater London. Therefore, what I am proposing now is not a new idea. However, it seems a perfect opportunity to do something about the problem.
None of the various co-ordinating committees in which I participated managed to achieve complete co-ordination of health provision in London. There was always too much sectional interest for success to be achieved. Since then, there have been many reports about the problems of health provision in London, particularly the Tomlinson Report. It is true that London has enormously special problems. It has a great number of teaching hospitals, many postgraduate special health authorities and, along with that, probably some of the poorest and most neglected community services of any region.
If we are to have a coherent health plan for greater London, it is important that we establish an authority which will carry out the proper strategic health planning that is required. I do not believe that that can be done by different authorities. Although we have now abolished the four regions—there are now the two regions of North and South Thames—it is my contention that the only way in which we shall be able to make sense of the health services in London is to have a planning authority for the whole of London. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in her amendment. With her experience as chair of one of the regions which contained both deprived inner, and leafy outer, London boroughs, as well as the affluent communities of Surrey, the noble Baroness is well placed to draw attention to the difficulties of catering for the wide range of needs of such a population. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who is to answer for the Government, has precisely the same experience of looking after that region.
If a map is made of the United Kingdom in which health authorities—or electoral districts—are shaded
1554
from light to dark according to their degree of relative deprivation or poverty, as we all know, the south, especially the south-east, appears white or a very pale shade of grey compared with the north or north-west. The exception however, is inner London. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it stands out as a sizeable dark blot on the map, a blot covering the inner core of the former four Thames regions, now reduced to two.
The concentration of teaching hospitals in inner London, and thus the allocation of National Health Service funds, has historically directed attention away from providing the community services which are needed for relatively deprived people while outer London's hospital services were being built up to decrease the dependence of outer London's population on the relatively expensive teaching hospitals. We know that the Government are now aware of the need to build up primary and community health care in inner London. The squeezing and merging of the teaching hospitals a la Tomlinson has revealed and accentuated the deficiencies, particularly for those with mental illness which is, of course, far more prevalent in deprived areas, and particularly in inner-city communities.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, how much better it would have been if historically the needs of the whole of inner London could have been considered as a unit. In the future, the skeleton of the regions which remain will function better under the overall aegis of the strategic health planning authority which is proposed by the noble Baroness. The London Implementation Zone (LIZ) and the London Implementation Group (LIG) are a precedent. They already straddle the two remaining regions. I suggest that there is need for a continuing, overall co-ordinating body, such as the noble Baroness suggested. I fully support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to RAWP because that was when resources started to move out of London under a Labour government who said that London had too much. I do not know whether that was on a financial basis. It is not clear to me whether that was what the noble Baroness was saying. But as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, historically there were too many teaching hospitals in the centre of London and, by comparison, other areas were deprived of services—
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I referred to RAWP because under RAWP all the London metropolitan regions lost money to the regions further out in the north.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Exactly. The same has been happening under the London Implementation Group and as a result of the Tomlinson Report. They have continued what started under RAWP. RAWP was the beginning of the change to move funds out of London.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, talked about inner London whereas, in her amendment, the noble Baroness refers to,
"the area of the London Boroughs",
which means both inner and outer London.

1555
There is a marked difference between the old LCC inner London area and the GLC greater London area. To tie the authority to London would be complicated and not necessarily beneficial at this stage. The North Thames and South Thames regions, as the noble Baroness said, encompass much greater areas. To bring back an authority to cover just London—as I say we have discussed whether it would be inner or outer London—would not make it coterminous with anything.
We had a debate earlier about health authorities being coterminous. There is no greater London council, so there is no one authority with which the proposed authority could be coterminous. I do not see the case for allocating an authority just for London. The present mix of the areas outside London with London is right. When I was vice-chairman of my region I found it beneficial to contrast what was happening in the North East Thames Region (inner London) with what was happening in Essex. Of course North Thames now takes in the whole of Hertfordshire as well.
Patients do not recognise boundaries. London also attracts patients from outside London. I do not believe that this is a practical amendment and I oppose it.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Government are committed to improving health care in London. That is why we set up the London Implementation Group which has provided the impetus for initiating long overdue changes.Making London Better, which was the Government's response to the Tomlinson Report, sets out clearly the framework for action. It has four main strands: first, to develop better, more accessible primary and community health care services through GPs and other professionals working in the community. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will be pleased about that because they commented upon primary health care.
The second strand is to provide a better balanced hospital service, meeting the needs of London's resident, working and visiting populations more appropriately; thirdly, to concentrate, develop and enhance specialist healthcare services; and, lastly, to take action for the benefit of teaching and research. But the work of the London Implementation Group is now complete. It was established to take on responsibility for the reorganisation of the city's primary and acute services and its medical education and research. It had a temporary role.
The King's Fund Commission produced an authoritative report on the issue of health care in London in 1992—before the publication of the Tomlinson recommendations. The King's Fund report—London Health Care 2010, changing the future of services in the capital—recommended that a task force like the London Implementation Group should be established. But, it did not recommend establishing a single health authority for London. That possibility was considered and rejected.
London is made up primarily of individual communities, often with a diverse cultural and social make-up. The needs of those communities also vary considerably within local areas. A single strategic health
1556
planning authority for the whole of London would not take account of that variation. The emphasis must continue to be on local health needs met by local health authorities. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner that it would not be helpful to confine "the region of London" to the "area of the London Boroughs". That does not take account of natural population flows, particularly on the margins of greater London. The Thames regions include Kent, Sussex, Essex and Surrey. Those areas need to be considered alongside London.
Individual health authorities will be the key strategic bodies in the new system, acting at local level in London as elsewhere. Where issues affect more than one HA, they will be expected to work together in consortia or by identifying a lead HA. In that way, we can ensure that the needs of local communities will be taken into account. Of course, some oversight at a wider level than that of HAs will be needed. The regional offices of the NHS Executive will oversee the work of the health authorities. They will make sure that HAs work together where appropriate. And there will be only two regional offices for London, replacing the four Thames RHAs which previously shared responsibility for London. The regional offices will be well placed to co-ordinate where necessary.
A strategic health planning authority would serve only to impose another administrative tier, It would mean more bureaucracy, administrators and managers. There would be a real risk of London dominating the rest of the country instead of having a proper balance between the regions. The Bill puts in place the necessary structures for NHS management. There is no reason to treat the capital in a totally different way from the rest of the country. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I am afraid that I was not quick enough to realise she was speaking on behalf of the Minister. With the permission of the Committee, I should like add a few points in support of the amendment. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mention the King's Fund because, as I am sure she is aware, its latest contribution to the discussion about London advances the argument for the establishment of a strategic health authority rather than the reverse.
As the Committee will remember, in its original report the King's Fund gave one view of London's health services. From reading its more recent appraisal of the situation, as I understand it, much of that has been reversed. It claims that newly emerging evidence suggests that the capital's health care needs have been underestimated, and rather than call, as it did in its original document, for a reduction in funding, it now suggests that purchasing should be increased by £200 million.
I cite that finding because it suggests that there are strategic problems in London that need to be addressed, and probably need to be addressed in the long term in a rather more detailed and consistent way than was

1557
possible under LIG, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, was set up for a specific purpose and a specific time-limited project only.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and, I am afraid, disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. The London boroughs area has several specific problems which are worthy of the attention of a strategic policy body of the kind for which we have argued in general terms in relation to regional health authorities. Perhaps I may mention a couple of points which were not mentioned. There is considerable concern about the lack of take-up of GP services in London. There are a number of people among the floating population who are not registered with GPs and so are not available for the kind of primary care which, as we know, it is intended will become the more formal basis of the health service. The floating population ranges from the affluent young, who just happen to live in bed-sit accommodation and never register with GPs, to the huge numbers of homeless and rootless.
Perhaps I may illustrate again from my own local health authority. The number of people registered with GPs decreased between 1990 and 1993. Those who are not registered with GPs are still using the acute sector A&E departments and the minor injuries units for their primary care services. In the past, Ministers have referred to that use of the A&E departments for primary care services as inappropriate. Obviously, in an ideal world, that is the right word, but the fact remains that we have not yet sorted out London to make it possible to establish primary care services which are acceptable to that peculiar population of floating people who are not registered with GPs and in a way which enables one to be confident about the reduction in acute sector beds.
That leads me to the 64,000 dollar question about London: is it under-bedded or over-bedded? That is what I might refer to in shorthand as the "Professor Jarman" debate. That is another issue which is best addressed on a strategic level by a broad approach which cannot be dealt with usefully at the local health authority level. It is something which must be agreed upon, considered and referred to in a way which takes account of the broader areas both in inner and outer London, and it must achieve the right balance.
The other areas of concern to local health authorities in London relate to such issues as the discussion on whether a hub and spoke approach is taken to the arrangement of services. Again, that should be decided strategically by taking an overview. It cannot be achieved by looking only at local health authority needs and resources.
In its latest document to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, the King's Fund said that there are three issues which need to be addressed: first, what is the capital's fair share of national resources; secondly, what is the appropriate way to respond to the healthcare needs of Londoners—that is, how to achieve a balance between primary and acute care in a rather peculiar population; and thirdly, how any necessary changes in the balance between health and social care can best be implemented. Those seem to be strategic questions which can be best addressed by a strategic
1558
body. Those issues cannot be covered by the regional outposts which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, will be overseeing the work of the local authorities. Positive, directed and advocate-based arguments are required in order to carry out an analysis of those very difficult issues relating to the particularly difficult situation of the population in inner London. I support the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for her strong support of my amendment. In answering for the Government and in refusing to accept the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, went into some detail describing what was happening in London and how the London Implementation Group had finished its work and that it had worked for some time. Without mentioning their names, she referred to task forces which have been set up to cover various aspects of the London health and social services problem. Is not the fact that those bodies have been set up an admission that London needs an overall strategic planning authority?
The membership of that authority needs to be established in accordance with Part I of Schedule 5 of the 1977 Act and not on the basis of ad hoc committees which look piecemeal at the various problems.
I am desperately sad that the noble Baroness cannot see her way to accept my amendment. I shall not press it now; but I shall certainly return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 9:
Insert the following new clause:
("Independent health complaints authority
.After section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 there shall be inserted—
"Independent Health Complaints Authority.
10.—(l) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a Health Authority to be known as the NHS Complaints Authority.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1997, by regulations made under any of sections 13 to 17 (as appropriate) of this Act, provide for the Authority established under subsection (1) above to exercise all the duties and responsibilities of Health Authorities under the Hospitals Complaints Procedure Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act").
(3) It shall also be the duty of the Secretary of State to require, by directions made under section 1(1A) of the 1985 Act, each NHS trust to make provision for its complaints system to be supervised by the Authority established under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The membership of the Authority shall be established in accordance with Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act.".".).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31 which refers to Schedule 1 of the 1977 Act.
I should say at the outset that the creation of an independent complaints authority as suggested by the amendment is not the only way in which to achieve a uniform, National Health Service-wide fair and

1559
independent complaints procedure. But in the context of the Bill, it seems the most suitable way to respond to the need for overdue improvements in the present inadequate systems for processing complaints.
Complaints need to be dealt with as speedily, fairly and independently as possible in order to give as much satisfaction as is reasonable to the complainant. But it should also lead to changes in the National Health Service which minimise the chances of the problem recurring.
I am well aware that the Government have published recently the document Acting on Complaints, which is their reply to Professor Alan Wilson's report dated May 1994,Being heard. That response is to be welcomed; but we should like the Government to go further.
The Patient's Charter has very laudable objectives, but it needs teeth to be effective. There must be a good mechanism enabling patients to point out where they feel that the National Health Service has failed to live up to those high standards or has been responsible for unnecessary suffering or expense for them or their relatives.
At this stage I do not intend to make any political points about the reasons why there has been such a recent increase in complaints. There will always be complaints against the National Health Service where sick people are undergoing operations involving questions of life or death.
In its critique of Acting on Complaints, the National Consumer Council states:
"We urge the Government to keep up the momentum towards a common complaints system".
This amendment is offered in that spirit. Paragraph 176 of Professor Wilson's report,Being heard, states:
"All unnecessary differences between NHS complaints procedures should be avoided to establish maximum commonality between them",
not coterminousity. He refers to 29 other paragraphs in the report to back up that central recommendation.
In particular, the report draws attention to the difference in procedures between complaints against family health service practitioners and those against hospital staff. In Acting on Complaints, it is suggested that there should be three separate groups of panels to hear complaints: first, non-clinical hospital complaints; secondly, primary healthcare complaints; and thirdly, clinical complaints. That is completely against the recommendations at paragraphs 177 and 178 of the Wilson report, which states that the division between hospital and FHSA complaints procedures,
"is confusing to the public…and wrong in principle".
Again, there is no need for a separate system for complaints about clinical judgments. Common principles and features must apply to the handling of all complaints. That is the principle underlying the amendment.
There is also an uneasy feeling that complaints procedures are administered by people who are too close to the providers. That has increased since almost all provider units are run by trusts which also have to provide the structure for dealing with complaints against themselves.Acting on Complaints provides that a
1560
convener, who is a non-executive director of a trust or a member of the health authority in the case of primary care complaints, will decide, with an independent chairman, whether to convene a panel on any complaint. The independent chairman of the panel will be chosen from a list held by the regional office of the National Health Service Executive. I accept that in most cases, such a chairman will be of high integrity and wisdom.
However, the fact that the list is held by the National Health Service Executive may itself raise a few eyebrows. We believe that by putting the complaints procedure outside the trust or health authority concerned, there will be a greater feeling that justice will be seen to he done.
The role of the health commissioner—that is, the ombudsman—will remain important and should remain outside whatever complaints procedures are in place. It may be tempting to place the whole complaints mechanism under the ombudsman, thus increasing the role of his department, but that would be wrong as it is very important to maintain an appeal mechanism which is clearly separate from the National Health Service. Moreover, there are complaints about complaints, and how the latter are handled, which have recently increased. In the report of the Select Committee on the health ombudsman for last year, which has just been published, the ombudsman, Mr. William Reid, is quoted as saying:
"I was getting rather fed up of seeing the same mistakes made again and again and the trend of handling local complaints getting worse".
Mr. Reid is also quoted in the same report as saying:
"When people find they are treated discourteously … that one question is answered but four are not … that it takes a very long time to get a reply [which is] couched in terms [that] a lay person would not [understand], it is hardly surprising that they want to complain to someone independent".
But the wait of 45 weeks before a complaint is heard by the ombudsman suggests that his office and staff need to be expanded.
However, if complaints were handled better locally, such an expansion of the ombudsman's office would become unnecessary. If properly implemented, a complaints authority with local supervision in all health authorities should improve procedures and reduce the number of appeals to the health ombudsman which are now at a record level. Although it is not on the face of the amendment, the new complaints authority should recognise the role of community health councils in supporting complainants. But I would hope that the authority would take a conciliatory rather than an adversarial position in the majority of cases.
I have spoken now for eight minutes and I believe that I have said enough. Nevertheless, I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's opinion and that of other Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that the complaints procedure in the health service is now working very well. I further believe that it is no longer carried out on a confrontational basis. When I was in general practice as a dentist, we were asked to put leaflets in our waiting rooms advising patients on how to complain. However, every dentist threw them into the

1561
rubbish bin because they did not want patients to do so. However, since that time, there has been more of a consultation between patients and dentists; indeed, there is an encouragement to say the good things and to make suggestions as well as making complaints. I believe that that has been very effective in general practice.
So far as concerns hospitals, I believe that every complaint is taken seriously and that also applies to health authorities. Indeed, I know of no complaints that fail to receive an answer. Of course, it sometimes takes quite a long time to investigate a matter and, therefore, a temporary answer has to be sent. Moreover, on occasions, full inquiries into matters have to take place which can involve a considerable amount of time and effort on behalf of the staff. I do not believe that adding the proposed extra layer of authority just to deal with complaints would bring any improvement to a system which I believe is working very well at present.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall not take very long over what I have to say. First, I do not know whether or not to support the amendment. I, too, do not want another layer of authority to be added. But, nevertheless, I understand why the suggestion has been made. Further, having heard my noble friend's opening remarks, I must say that I would now be inclined to support the amendment despite the fact that, when I first saw it, I had doubts about it.
My concern as regards complaints within the health service is that too little account is taken of the vulnerability of patients and their ability and wish to complain. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, shakes her head. However, I have received a good deal of correspondence recently about the National Health Service. It is quite clear to me that patients do feel vulnerable, but that they are loath to complain in case their complaints are seen as being a criticism against operatives in the NHS. There are things about which patients want to complain, but they feel that if they make a complaint about, for example, the facilities, it would be taken as a complaint against their nurse, their doctor, their nursing assistant or some ancillary worker. That problem must be solved. I simply do not know whether the existing health service or the proposed arrangements will be able to do so.
Members of the Committee will know that I successfully moved the National Health Patient Accommodation Bill through this Chamber. The aim of the Bill was to provide patients with the right to be treated in single-sex wards. No doubt the noble Baroness will remember it. I have been amazed at the public reaction. It is quite clear that it was not realised within the health service that that was a problem. However, my postbag indicates that it is an enormous problem and that people, especially women, feel extremely bad because they will be treated in mixed-sex wards. It frightens and worries them; and, indeed, retards their progress. Yet, until quite recently, we had not really known about the problem because the complaints procedure was not available to reveal it.
I must tell the Minister that I am extremely sorry to say—indeed, I regret it very much—that my Bill was blocked in another place a week ago last Friday. After
1562
the noble Baroness has had sight of the 1,000 letters that I have received and which I intend to send to her, I hope that she will persuade her colleagues in government to change their minds. Even if they want to amend the Bill slightly, I hope that they will allow it to progress through the other place and that they will give it time.
We are discussing a serious problem. I believe that the amendment which has been moved is a real attempt to address a great problem within the health service and one which needs to be treated with great seriousness because those involved are, as I said, at their most vulnerable stage.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: As my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has mentioned the fact that he is unsure whether or not to support the amendment—although, in his concluding remarks, I believe he indicated that he would—perhaps I may just add two points that I hope the Minister will address which emerged from my noble friend's contribution. The first is the sense that patients have of the independence of the body to which they complain within the health service. My noble friend made a most important point about the degree of sensitivity which people feel when they are making complaints, especially as regards some of the subjects that he mentioned; for example, single-sex wards.
Patients feel that their complaints—about something which they regard as being a question of comfort, human rights or however they may wish to express it—will be seen as criticism of members of the medical profession. They are especially sensitive about any complaints which may be seen as criticism of the nursing profession.
We must be absolutely sure—and this is very much the thinking behind the amendment—that any complaints procedure which is acceptable and successful within the NHS is understood to be completely independent and neutral and not involved with the management of the NHS or, more importantly, seen in any way as a means of channelling criticism of the professions which most patients would not wish to do.
Secondly, can the Minister say how quickly she believes the new system will be able to work and what speed is intended to be asked of the new mechanisms in response? Again, following my noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I believe that there is some concern in that there is no mention in the new proposals about how quickly a patient may expect to receive a response to any complaint. This, of course, would indeed apply to the kind of situation which my noble friend has described when someone might find himself or herself confronted with the possibility of either going into a mixed-sex ward or having an important operation delayed, or whatever it might be. I

1563
hope that the Minister will address those points, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Stoddart will support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I hope that my noble friend will cover the role of the health ombudsman when replying to this amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I shall do my very best also to win over the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I think that would be a victory indeed. I have to say I admire his ingenuity in making yet another passionate plea on the issue of mixed sex wards. Although that is not part of this amendment, it is an issue that we take seriously, albeit that his Bill was not successful.
As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Rea, these amendments were tabled in the light of the recommendations of the Wilson Committee's Report on NHS complaints procedures. That committee was set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in June 1993, following increasing concern within the NHS, the professions and patient representatives about the shortcomings of the existing complaints procedures. As the noble Lord said, the Government's response to Professor Wilson's report was published last week in a document entitled Acting on Complaints. This sets out detailed plans for a new NHS complaints system for England. Similar systems will operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be pleased to hear that before we published Acting on Complaints we consulted widely and had a very impressive response—over 620 responses were received. We are most grateful to all the individuals and organisations who gave us their views. The Wilson Committee recommended that the current confusing array of different complaints procedures should be replaced. Instead, there should be a simpler system which would put matters right more quickly for patients and use their experience to improve the quality of service for everyone. The Government have accepted this recommendation and the NHS will, from April 1996, have a simpler, speedier and more effective complaints system. I think that responds to the request, of the noble Baroness about when things were going to happen., The emphasis in the new system is on quick responses to complaints at local level with an investigation or conciliation where necessary.
I wish to add a personal note. When I was a health authority chairman we used to say that a bunch of flowers was worth £40,000. As the noble Lord said, the independent panels will be set up to consider complaints which cannot be resolved using the local procedures. Finally, if a patient remains dissatisfied, the complaint can be referred to the Health Service Commissioner. I am sure the noble Lord and also the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, will welcome the Government's intention that as soon as parliamentary time allows we will bring forward legislation to extend the commissioner's remit so that he can investigate all complaints by NHS patients.
1564
We agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner that an effective new complaints system can be achieved without the need for a centralised complaints authority such as this amendment proposes. The Wilson Report did look at the possibility of a complaints commission, not unlike the authority proposed in this amendment. However, it was offered as only one of four possible homes for the organisation of the second stage, the independent panels. The other three options were: chief executives of the trust or family health services authority dealing with the complaint; purchasers; and regional offices of the NHS Executive. The emphasis of the recommendations was on a rapid and effective response from front line staff and a speedy method of resolving more difficult complaints by a designated complaints officer or the chief executive. If all complaints handling in the NHS was administered by a central bureaucracy, we believe we would not achieve the required responsiveness, speed and simplicity.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that we have considered all the options in this report. Our proposal for stage two is that the review panels will have a majority of lay members, completely independent of the service provider. The panels, therefore, will have access to independent professional advice on issues of clinical judgment. The decision as to whether a panel will be set up will be taken by a convener. For complaints about hospital services the convener will be a non-executive member of the trust concerned; for family health services, a non-executive of the relevant health authority. Before deciding whether or not a panel is needed, the convener will always consult the independent chairman who would chair the panel if one were to be set up. The panels themselves will consist of an independent lay chair and the panel convener. For complaints against trusts, the third member will be a purchaser representative—in most cases a health authority non-executive, or, if appropriate, a GP fundholder. In the case of family health services, the third member would be another independent member.
I am very glad to have had the opportunity to outline the Government's plans for a simpler, speedier NHS complaints procedure. I hope I have made clear that there is no need for these amendments which would simply set up a whole new complaints bureaucracy. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rea: I wish to thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. In fact, these amendments, as she realises, were 'exploratory in intent and followed the suggestions that were in the Wilson Report and also the suggestions by the National Consumer Council that perhaps there should be a national complaints commission. Of course, the noble Baroness is right. For that commission to administer all the complaints procedures throughout the country would be a bureaucratic and an impossible task. We were suggesting that there should be an independent authority—possibly a commission, to use another term—to oversee the complaints panels of the different health authorities and trusts throughout the country in order to keep standards up.
As the noble Baroness intimated, complaints need not necessarily be bad, although if more bunches of flowers were offered quickly enough perhaps there would be

1565
fewer complaints. However, a well handled complaint can be beneficial in that it can lead to adjustments of local practices and to improvements in the future. However, that is not to say that I do not think that many of the complaints now coming before panels are due to the delays and frustrations that people are experiencing directly as a result of the fact that the money does not follow the patient. There is not so much patient choice as there used to be and, inevitably, disappointments and inconveniences occur.
However, it is not my intention to press this amendment. I wish to thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. We will read what the Minister said because I believe it is the first time that the Government's intentions, outlined in Acting on Complaints, have been announced on the Floor of the Chamber. While thanking everyone for their contributions I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 10:
Insert the following new clause:
("Health Authorities: public meetings
A Health Authority established in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall each year hold at least the same number of public meetings as was held by an authority which it replaces.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 26. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the new health authorities hold open public meetings at least as frequently as do the existing district health authorities and family health services authorities. It seems to us that this Bill provides an ideal opportunity to ensure that the new purchasing bodies are at least as open and accountable as their predecessors, if indeed not more so.
Throughout debates on this Bill, both here and in another place, Ministers and others who have spoken on all sides of the Chamber have emphasised the need for openness in the health service. Again, that was referred to in the previous amendment. People believe that an independent and open organisation is very important in establishing public confidence.
I understand that the National Health Service Executive code of practice consultation—that word again—on the holding of meetings has been concluded but not yet released. Therefore, this is a good opportunity to explore the necessity for putting this minimal amendment on the face of the Bill to guarantee in practice that matters will not get worse under the new arrangements for health authorities.
There is considerable evidence, much of it anecdotal but also some that is authoritative from community health councils and organisations such as the research body Community Rights, that health authorities are not as open and public in their meetings as they were previously and that this has become a closed area of government. I know from my own experience of matters which could well be discussed in open session being discussed in closed session, often for no better reason than that there might be embarrassment to executive directors required to answer rather tricky questions.
There is also a tendency among health authorities to use the so-called seminar procedure to debate many important policy issues which can then be brought to the public meeting almost for rubber stamping. The real discussion and exchange of opinion goes on behind closed doors at the seminar and the debate on the subject matter in the open meeting is almost rehearsed. That is partly due to the fact that health authorities operate under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act which, I was fascinated to discover, had been a Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in 1960. In it there is a catch-all phrase which allows for the health authority to go into private session on any pretext which it determines.
One hopes therefore that the Government will accept the provisions of the amendment. Dare one hope that they will go even further and, if they are to issue new guidance and codes of practice, incorporate some of the provisions of the local government access to information legislation, under which local authorities act, to give the new health authorities the responsibility to publish reports, produced for the consumption of their members, more widely and allow the background papers to be seen?
As I said, this is an exploratory amendment designed to establish the Government's intentions in terms of their guidance to health authorities under the new regulations. However, I hope that they will at least accept this very minimal amendment, which does no more than ensure that in future matters will not get any worse than they are now. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 26 which is linked to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. It is essential that meetings of health authorities should be held in public. That does not apply only to one annual meeting. All meetings of health authorities should be held in public so far as possible. There will be times when that is not appropriate. I remember from my own experience that delicate subjects arise which involve personalities. In such cases meetings would have to be held in private session. However, those should be kept to a minimum.
It is desperately important that members of the community health council should have the right to attend and take part in such meetings. They provide the best communication between health authorities and the general public. They have served us very well over the years. They have progressively been deprived of their rights under the health reforms. I should like those rights to be reinstated so that the voice of the community health councils can again be heard.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Amendment No. 10 is not necessary. Existing health authorities are covered by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred, under which, subject to certain conditions, any meeting of an authority must be open to the public. The necessary amendment to that legislation to cover the new health authorities is included at paragraph 91 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Bill.

1567
Having established in general terms that all meetings of a health authority will be open to the public, what is not addressed in the Bill is how many such meetings should be held. However, there has never been any provision in legislation to dictate to a health authority how many meetings it must hold. The Committee will know that it is not the policy of this Government to interfere unnecessarily in the administrative arrangements of National Health Service boards. Health authorities hold as many meetings as are needed to transact their business. That arrangement will continue under the new system. It is for the chairman and members of such boards to make the arrangements that meet the needs of that body.
Those Members of the Committee who hold or have held positions on management boards will particularly appreciate the need for flexibility in these matters. There will be times when a board, having a great deal of business to conduct, needs to meet frequently. There will be other times when board meetings can be kept to a minimum. It would be inappropriate to interfere in such a local management matter in the way suggested by the amendment. Health authorities must be free to conduct business in the way that best fits their needs rather than having unnecessary restrictions placed upon them.
On a more general point, the Committee will be aware that we are committed to ensuring that the public have access to as much information as possible, not only through access to meetings of health authorities. Consultation on a draft code of openness for the National Health Service has now been completed. The code will set out the public's right to information, except in clearly defined circumstances, and it will be published soon.
Also, under the codes of conduct and accountability introduced in April 1994, health authorities are for the first time expected to publish an annual report. The steps we have taken and the plans we have for future improvements demonstrate our commitment to openness in the National Health Service. Amendment No. 10 at best achieves nothing and at worst interferes with the smooth management of the National Health Service.
As regards Amendment No. 26, all health authority meetings will be open to the public because the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act will apply to health authorities, as I stated earlier.
The amendment also raises the issue of the role of community health councils. The councils perform a very important function in representing the interests of the community in the National Health Service. On a personal level, when I was chairman of the Barnet Family Health Services Authority, we regarded highly the way in which the community health council performed its function on behalf of the local community.
Community health councils already have observer status on health authorities and the right to meet them annually. As my honourable friend the Minister for Health made clear in another place, there will be no change in the requirement on health authorities to consult community health councils as a result of the Bill.
1568
We do not wish to do anything which undermines effective working relationships between community health councils and their local health authorities. However, it would not be right for them to take an active part in health authority meetings.
It is important that CHCs retain their independence. Their members act wholly on behalf of local patients. There must be no risk of a conflict of interest that might cause them to take other obligations into consideration when dealing with local health authorities or trusts on behalf of patients.
Health authorities and community health councils perform two completely different functions. The health authority is responsible for ensuring that the health needs of the local communities are met. The community health council is there to provide a voice for the local community. It is important that those two functions remain distinct if they are to be performed effectively.
Health authority meetings will be open to the public. The right of CHCs to observe at health authority meetings and to meet health authorities annually will be retained. Their role as an independent voice in the National Health Service will not be changed by the Bill. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will not feel it necessary to press their amendments.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. She has not addressed one of the points with which I am concerned. I refer to the difference between the technical ability of health authorities to hold all their meetings in public and the reality. In reality, progressively much business is discussed in seminar form (or whatever it may be called). There is discussion between members with the matter brought to the public view only at a time when decisions have been taken.
I understand the noble Baroness's almost ideological (if I may use that word) dislike of interfering in the local management of health authorities. However, there is the question of a slippage of public awareness. As I said in my opening remarks, there is the sense that sometimes public meetings are almost rehearsed because so many decisions have been taken earlier. One cannot be reassured unless there is a firmer understanding about how many of the authorities' meetings are to be held in public.
I understand the noble Baroness's points about flexibility as regards local business, and so on. But I am anxious about the way in which so many local authorities now use the opportunities afforded under the catch-all phrase to which I referred in the 1960 legislation to move into closed session in seminar format.
Therefore, although I shall not press the amendment at this stage, I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
Insert the following new clause:
("Nurse Education Authority
. After section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 there shall be inserted—
"Nurse Education Authority.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a Health Authority to be known as the Nurse Education Authority.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations made under any of sections 13 to 17 as appropriate, provide for the Authority established under subsection (1) above to have the duty of commissioning nurse education in England.
(3) The membership of the Authority shall be established in accordance with Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is clear from the wording. It deals with a problem which may arise: the important question of nurse education after reorganisation. As is clear, the amendment establishes a new authority responsible for the commissioning of nurse education at a national level. It is based on the argument that a national overview is needed to prevent nurse shortages which would be to the detriment of patients. It is clear that the abolition of the RHAs will have profound implications for the of nurse education. In the past the RHAs were responsible for determining the demands of employers for nurses and for purchasing education and training places to meet that demand. Indeed, the national balance sheet exercise was set up in 1991 to determine the future supply and demand within regions, and in England as a whole.
It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that that will be the case. We understand that with the abolition of RHAs, the strategic overview or planning function will be devolved. It seems that the Government have devised a fairly complicated way of doing that. Initially, the regional offices of the NHS Executive will commission education programmes on the basis of proposals by healthcare purchasers and employers.
In the longer term—it has not been defined; it would be helpful if the Minister could do so—local consortia of health authorities and trusts will take on that role. Their plans should be overseen by a regional education development group in the new regional offices. That seems to us to be a recipe for muddle, confusion and overlap in particular as it appears—again I ask the Minister to confirm this—that there is no intention to continue with the national overview for nursing in England. Unless the business is carefully planned in the way in which I have described, it could end up in a fearsome muddle.
We are all aware of the implications for patient care if there is a shortage of qualified nurses. There has been a 33 per cent. reduction in training places for nurses between 1987 and 1994. The wastage rates have ceased to fall, and the turnover rates have risen. That indicates the greater mobility of the current nursing workforce. However, casualisation—the increasing use of short-term contracts, agencies, bank nurses and the like—is an increasing feature of the system. It is
1570
certainly very different from the nursing profession which we have all been used to and the way in which nurses were employed.
There is also concern that the need for nurses beyond the health service should be planned for and recognised. There is concern that when deciding on the future need for nursing, the local consortia of authorities and trusts, overseen by the regional educational development, the groups of the NHS Executive and the civil servants, will focus solely on the needs of the health service, and, in the health service, perhaps on the needs of the hospital service. The need for nurses in local authorities, prisons, the growing nursing home sector, and in the workplace—the industrial nurses—may not have sufficient attention paid to it.
What will happen to colleges of nursing and to nurse teachers? If predictions underestimate future demand for nurses, that will have an impact on education establishments which provide nurse training. It is clear that if health authorities in their new role fail to place a contract with an education establishment for a specific branch of nursing —the RCN gives an example of learning disability nursing —then the nurse tutors at the establishment are likely to be made redundant. If at a future date the demand prediction changes, then the infrastructure for education in the specialist sector has been lost.
We can all agree that planning the future of the nursing workforce is a highly complex exercise. It needs to be based on figures which have been closely researched and which include the analysis of the need for nursing outside the NHS, but, above all, which give a national overview of the demand for nurse education to ensure that the correct number of nurses with the necessary mix of skills are available to meet the future needs of patients. I beg to move.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: The noble Lord has spoken comprehensively about the fears for nursing education in the future. Indeed, we are in the midst of some of those fears now. I was apprehensive to hear, for instance, that a region had budgeted for 10 training places for community nurses for the coming year. With all the developments in primary healthcare and community nursing that figure seemed to me to be completely inadequate.
While I am fully convinced that there needs to be a national overview of the commissioning for nursing education, I remain to be convinced that the creation of a special health authority for that purpose is the answer to those problems.
However, I am sure that we must not trespass on the statutory duties of the UKCC and the associated boards.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am sure that the Committee will agree that patients should have the highest quality care from nurses. That is why those closest to the delivery of that care should have a major influence on the volume and type of education commissioned. Our policy is to place patients' needs firmly at the centre of education and training.

1571
We believe that the amendment would diminish this crucial influence and do so to the detriment of patient care. It would unnecessarily create a costly central bureaucracy, diverting funds from patient care.
We recognise the need to ensure an adequate national supply of appropriately trained nurses. I take the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane: we need to keep the issue under close scrutiny. However, that is why we are putting in place arrangements to commission education and training which will take place within a policy framework and guidelines set by the NHS Executive Headquarters.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be reassured that we have recently published guidance setting out the criteria for devolving purchasing to consortia. Local purchasing will begin when health authorities meet those criteria. That is why we said that it will happen in the longer term rather than immediately on 1st April 1996.
The NHS Executive will maintain a national overview of demand and supply, taking account of the needs of the NHS and other providers of healthcare. Most importantly, we are ensuring professional input at every level of the new arrangements. We will be supporting the development of workforce planning and education commissioning skills at local level.
As the noble Baroness said, Parliament has already established, the statutory bodies to set and maintain standards of education in nursing—the United Kingdom Central Council and the English National Board—with which we work closely. A nurse education authority would undermine the responsibility that Parliament has vested in those bodies.
More flexible working arrangements and better use of professional skills means that nurses and midwives are remaining in their posts longer and more people are returning to the profession after career breaks. Those factors are reflected in the reduced number of students. But, of course, the longer-term supply of nurses has to be kept constantly under review, which is what the policy framework and guidelines set by the NHS executive will do.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the issue of supply. I can reassure him that recruitment to nurse education is healthy. The number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff employed by the NHS has increased by 14 per cent.; that is 30,000 more nurses since 1981. There are more qualified nurses for every unqualified nurse now than there were in 1981. Practice nurse numbers in the family health service have grown by 674 per cent. over the past 12 years. I believe that this nation's nurses are educated and trained to the highest standards and that they are the best in the world. Thus, we believe that a nurse education authority will add nothing to what we are already doing. Therefore, I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. She said that what was proposed in the amendment would be a costly exercise in bureaucracy. However, one may compare it with what the Government intend to do. That is, first, regional offices of the NHS executive, then the
1572
local consortia, the regional education development group and all the rest of it, without the national overview for nursing.
I think that the Government are being extremely optimistic if they believe that they will reduce bureaucracy. Obviously, the information which the Minister gave about the policy guidelines and the criteria is welcome. She has not said how long is the longer term about which I asked. I understand that the Government wish to see how matters turn out before they can reach a decision on when the switch to the local consortia takes place.
There is some reassurance in what the Minister said, but I am not sure that we will not have to return to the problem. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill
7.31 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Creation]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor)moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment is consequential on the amendment in respect of the new clause to come after Clause 4. With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to that amendment and the amendment to Clause 16 at the same time. I shall therefore speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 12, 14 and 15.
The Olympics association right is a very wide right since it applies to any use in the course of trade without the consent of the British Olympic Association. I believe that the Bill goes as far as it can in Clause 4 in identifying what I would call reasonable trade uses of a controlled representation and my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will speak to Clause 4 in relation to

1573
his amendment. It reflects the interests of the BOA and the commitments made by the Government to the International Olympic Committee.
As I explained on Second Reading, however, concerns were expressed in another place about uses of a controlled representation by businesses in a way which might be technically in breach of the Olympics association right but do not affect the commercial interests of the BOA. I gave examples at Second Reading of companies which might choose, after the Bill is enacted and comes into force, to register themselves as, for example, Olympic Bus, Olympic Cars and Olympic Electronics.
The Secretary of State already has a power under Clause 14 to give directions to the BOA with regard to the exercise of the Olympics association right and where there is no threat to its commercial interests the BOA will be happy to consent to use. Nevertheless, the possibility of infringement would still require businesses formally to approach the BOA for consent, or the Secretary of State for a Clause 14 direction. It is anticipated that the administrative burden on the BOA and the Secretary of State could be great. The proposed amendments would enable the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument to provide that a specified category of uses of a controlled representation would not constitute an infringement of the Olympics association right.
If this Bill is enacted the Secretary of State, with the assistance of the BOA, will seek to identify areas where use of a controlled representation may properly be allowed without jeopardising the BOA's commercial interests. It is difficult to anticipate where the need may arise but the provision is broad enough to allow the Secretary of State to permit uses of a controlled representation: for example; for the purposes of new subsidiary companies of established companies; in the incorporation of a company under a name which was formerly its business name; for the purpose of a certain class of business—for example, florists, small restaurants; for specified trade uses for the purposes of an undertaking—for example, use in a campaign against drug taking in the Olympics.
My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare spoke on Second Reading with his usual eloquence about the importance of the Olympic symbol above all other sporting emblems, I entirely accept what he said. The commercial exploitation of the Olympic symbol by anyone other than the British Olympic Association is entirely unacceptable and it is already reflected on the face of the Bill. Any order made under the proposed new power will also distinguish, along the same lines, between permitted use of a protected word and the symbol.
There may be circumstances, however, where non-exploitational use of the symbol might well be appropriate. One example I referred to earlier might be in a campaign against drug taking in Olympic sports. Again, it might be appropriate to authorise limited use of the symbol by a disabled Olympics association with conditions as to its use and attribution.
Also in this respect I have heard the Olympics association right correctly referred to as a "super trade mark" since the monopoly conferred by the legislation is not limited to goods and services. That is an accurate reflection of the significance of the emblem and commitments given to the International Olympic Committee. However, if companies find that the right affects incidental use of a protected word or symbol in their business relationships in ways which have not been anticipated in Clause 4(1) it might be appropriate to except such use from being an infringement of the Olympics association right. One instance of incidental use is already identified in Clause 4(13); that is, use for the purposes of judicial or parliamentary proceedings in which use might be of both the symbol and protected words.
Since the object of this clause is therefore to provide maximum flexibility in permitting the fair use of a controlled representation it would not be appropriate to limit the Secretary of State's power to protected words alone. Neither would it be appropriate for the clause to be narrower than Clause 14 since it is Clause 14 which this provision complements by providing the ability to put the subject matter of a direction on a general statutory footing if it is appropriate.
The amendment technically allows the Secretary of State to permit the use of the symbol but the Secretary of State could only do so where it would be reasonable within the spirit of the Act and the symbol will have greater protection than the words. I can assure the Committee in the strongest terms, therefore, that the Secretary of State has no intention of allowing the commercial exploitation of the symbol or any use of the symbol by anyone other than the British Olympic Association.
The amendments provide a safety net for fair and non-exploitational uses of a controlled representation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, after ("4") insert ("and (Power to prescribe further limits on effect)").
The noble Viscount said: I have just spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Limits on effect]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("is") and insert ("consists of use").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 to 11 inclusive, and Amendment No. 13. Before I move on to the amendments, I think it would be appropriate to put Clause 4 as a whole in the context of the Bill.
The Olympics association right is a very wide right which confers exclusive rights in relation to the use of the Olympic symbol, motto and protected words. Under Clause 3(1) a person infringes the Olympics association right if he uses, in the course of trade, a representation

1575
of the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto or protected word, or a representation of something so similar to the Olympic symbol or the Olympic motto as to be likely to create in the public mind an association with it.
However, there will be cases where a person may have an existing or deserved right to use a controlled representation, or where it would be proper to allow the use of a controlled representation because the user is merely involved in factual reporting or because the use would not be to the commercial detriment of the proprietor. Clause 4 therefore sets out those circumstances where the use of a controlled representation in the course of trade will be permitted. Much of Clause 4 is self-explanatory; but there are a couple of matters that I wish to emphasise in relation to the clause.
First, noble Lords will note that all existing use of a controlled representation for the purposes of an undertaking, or as part of a business or company name, may continue. Provision for this is made in Clause 4 subsections (9) and (10) respectively. Secondly, Clause 4 subsections (4) and (5) apply only to representations of a protected word, and not to the Olympic symbol or motto. As my noble friend the Minister said, my noble friend Lord Archer of Western-Super-Mare expressed great concern over the unique significance of the Olympic symbol in world sport. I certainly agree with my noble friend. The commercial exploitation of the Olympic symbol in any form and by anyone other than the proprietor of the Olympics association right is entirely unacceptable, and it is reflected on the face of the Bill.
Subsections (4) and (5) raise some difficult points. I should like to dwell on these two subsections for a short while before moving on to the amendment to Clause 4(1). Clause 4(4) provides that the Olympics association right is not infringed where one of the protected words is used in a way which is not such as ordinarily to create an association with the Olympic Games or the Olympic movement or a quality ordinarily associated with the Olympic Games or Olympic movement. Such qualities may include speed, excellence or strength.
I wish to make it clear that most uses of a protected word will be in a way which creates an association with the Olympic Games or the Olympic movement. By definition, it is with the Olympic Games and the qualities associated with the Olympics that people normally connect the words "Olympic", "Olympian" and "Olympiad", their plurals and translations and nothing else.
For use of a protected word not to be associated with the Olympics or their qualities, a user would need to show a legitimate alternative explanation. Members of the Greek community, for example, may sometimes use a protected word to create an association with their or their forebears' homeland when opening a small business such as a restaurant or a grocery. It is certainly not the intention of the Bill that Olympic Airlines creates an association with the Olympic Games unless its activities were to stray into areas rightly regarded as those of the proprietor. However, I wish to make it clear
1576
to the House that a defence under Clause 4(4) to an infringement action should be available as the exception rather than the rule.
Clause 4(5) provides that,
"In the case of a representation of a protected word, the Olympics association right is not infringed by use which creates an association between the Olympic games or the Olympic movement and any person or thing where the association fairly represents a connection between the two, provided the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters".
An example of use which might be justified under this clause is an hotelier who advertises accommodation within five minutes' walk of an Olympic Games venue. This will also cover incidental reporting of anything to do with the Olympics in day-to-day trade.
The use would need to be a fair representation of an existing connection, however. The clause does not, for example, permit a manufacturer to claim that his products have been endorsed by the proprietor or the Olympic movement at large when they have not. Likewise, a widget supplier could not claim on the basis of a simple supply agreement with the proprietor that he is "the supplier of widgets to the British Olympic Association".
Further, the Clause 4(5) defence should be available only where the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Among other things, this restricts what is known in the marketing profession as "ambush marketing". An example of this would be if the British Olympic Association officially endorses a sportswear manufacturer's products, and a rival manufacturer runs an advertising campaign using former Olympic champions or other images of the Olympic Games deliberately in order to counter the benefits of official endorsement. However it is dressed up, this is not honest commercial practice, and the person who undertakes such an advertising strategy will receive no succour from this Bill.
I turn now to the amendments. Clause 4(1) is one of the exceptions stressed in Clause 4 and provides where use of a controlled representation in circumstances which would otherwise infringe the Olympics association right is permissible when it is used in literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts and cable programmes.
The Olympic Games are public events, just like the coronation of the Queen or the forthcoming VE Day commemorations. It would. be quite unfair and totally impractical for the Bill to prevent broadcasters, journalists, photographers, artists and film-makers making reference to the Olympics without the consent of the proprietor although that is their trade. That would be censorship, and it would be unacceptable. That is why Clause 4(1) as drafted accepts the use in literary works, etc., provided the use in those works does not advertise or promote goods or services and is in accordance with honest commercial practice.
However, the Bill seeks to prevent the use of an artistic work which contains a controlled representation to sell other goods and services. It is not intended, for example, that a person could use a television broadcast,

1577
itself permitted, to advertise a product by reference to the Olympic Games, and it is not intended that a person could use an artistic work which contains a controlled representation as a design for goods such as T-shirts, sports bags and equipment. A close examination of the Bill throws doubt on whether the restriction on commercial use of a work to advertising or promotional activities covers the full range of practices by which a person who is determined to use a controlled representation might exploit a work commercially and against the spirit of the Bill.
As an example of how Clause 4(1) as currently drafted might be exploited through sharp commercial practice, it is useful to look at the artistic work exception. The definition of "artistic work" in the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 is very wide. It covers among other things any graphic work or photograph, irrespective of quality. A design with the words "Olympic Yachting" and the Olympic symbols printed as part of a wider graphic design—say, involving an anchor and a rope—would be an artistic work. A user of the design would claim the Section 4(1) defence, and that would be available to him unless the design was also being used to promote goods or services as in Clause 4(1) (b).
Where there is uncertainty is whether sticking a design on a T-shirt could be said to promote that T-shirt. It is certainly the intention .of the Bill that such exploitation should be prohibited; but it is possible that the courts might hold that the design on the T-shirt is what the T-shirt is bought for and it cannot be said to be there in any subsidiary capacity to promote the T-shirt. This is too important a matter to be left in any doubt.
It is proposed therefore to replace the current provision that use in a work is allowed so long as the purpose of the work is not the advertising or other promotion of goods or services, with a new, two-pronged provision which examines the use of a work in the course of trade in relation to other goods and services. Any of the actions illustrated in Clause 3(2) of the Bill as examples of what may be use in the course of trade might also constitute use in relation to goods or services if what is being used is a work, The addition, through Amendment No. I1, of a new subsection at page 4, line 43 of the Bill makes clear beyond doubt that the affixation of a work to goods is used in relation to goods.
The amendment to Clause 4(1) provides that the Olympics association right is not infringed by use of a controlled representation in artistic work, and so on, where the person using the representation in the work does not intend that work to be used in relation to goods or services in circumstances which would involve an infringement of the Olympics association right. This would allow the proprietor to enforce the Olympics association right to prevent the use of a work in relation to other goods and services before it is actually used where that work, for example in an advertising broadcast, has clearly been created with the intention of being used in the course of trade in relation to goods and services.
The proposed Clause 4(1A) provides that any use of a work in relation to other goods and services is an infringement of the Olympics association right whatever its original purpose. Controlled representation may be used in relation to literary or artistic works, etc., which are to any extent about the Olympic Games or the Olympic movement under Clause 4(3), which covers, for example, trailers for television coverage at the Olympic Games or the promotion of books about the Olympic Games.
Together, the amendments have the effect of bringing into play some non-exploitative uses of works as an infringement of the Olympics association right. The honourable Member for Brent, East, gave an illustration in another place of a satirical cartoon about the games being used in a teeshirt design in a campaign against the games.
Amendment No. 10 provides at page 3, line 11 that the use of a controlled representation in a work which is to any extent about the Olympic Games or the Olympic movement—that would include the cartoon—should be allowed in relation to goods where the use of the work is not for the purposes of gain for any person or loss for another.
With the benefit of my amendments, and those which my noble friend the Minister moved, I submit that Clause 4 of the Bill is a good clause. It is fair to legitimate users of a controlled representation but firm in protecting the proprietor's commercial interests. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on having gone through what was literally the letter of the law in order that the British Olympic Association should be properly protected. He has had to make a speech in which every single word had to be in place and everything had to be correct so that if it ever reaches the courts we are properly protected.
But let us have no doubt about why we are discussing this matter. We are here today because the British Olympic Association has been losing money year in and year out through people stealing the name or the sign. I start by thanking the Minister for giving me such assurance on the Olympic sign: the five great circles which represent the games.
I wish to tell my noble friend Lord Brabazon how much I appreciate what he has done for the Olympics association. I do not want any noble Lord to go home tonight with any doubt. The issue we are discussing is that of allowing our young people a better chance at the next Olympics. That is what this debate is about: allowing our young people to benefit from the Olympics. That is truly worthwhile. I thank my noble friend Lord Brabazon for the amount of time and effort he has expended to make sure that that will happen.
There are thousands of young children who do not have a clue that this debate is taking place. They have no idea at all. Why should they? They are out there on the tracks tonight running, doing the best they can. That is why we are here today. My noble friend Lord

1579
Brabazon keeps to the letter of the law, as I said, but the truth is that that is why we are here. I am very proud to support him.
My noble friend mentioned the problems we will have with the name. I do not want the Minister to be in any doubt about the name. If there are any doubts, they should go in favour of the British Olympic Association. One can have something like Olympic Airways. The Olympics started again in Athens in 1896 and of course Greece has a right to call its airline Olympic Airways. That is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing people who feel that they can make a few extra pounds by sticking "Olympic" on a sweat shirt or even on a restaurant. I do not want them to have those few extra pounds. I want that money to go to the British Olympic Association so that we do not have to bother the Government.
I said to the Minister when the Bill first came to this Chamber that we were not asking him for any money—not a penny. The reason for putting this Bill through is so that the Government will not have to spend any money. The clauses point to that. I say to my noble friend Lord Brabazon that if there is any doubt about stealing or using the word, I am here to make sure that the benefit of that doubt goes in favour of the British Olympic Association and not someone who is trying to make money on the side.
I thank the Minister. I am delighted that we have been able to iron out the particular problem of the word. But I do not want him to go home tonight imagining that he has pushed through the Bill and nothing will happen. Some of us will fight if we find that the British Olympic Association has been taken advantage of and we shall not hesitate to remind him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Having been present for the Second Reading of the Bill, I know that there is no dispute in the Chamber; this is a good idea. In his inimitable way, from his experience and knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Archer, emphasised how necessary it is to protect a great institution. There is no argument about that.
I do have some slight concerns. I cannot recall a private measure which carried so many amendments. Obviously, they are all designed to improve it. I have no doubt at all that consultations have taken place. I am not privy to the size of the problem. I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Archer, said. Sadly, we know that commerce has entered into sport —to its detriment.
However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, can enlighten me on one point. The noble Lord, Lord Archer, referred to enormous sums of money which perhaps had been denied, filched or stolen. Can he say whether there are any figures available, or was that just a phrase? I accept that there are people who have deliberately taken advantage and dishonestly used the symbol, the words and the symbolism.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may give a classic example. At the Olympic Games, the badges are brought out. They are the badges that every child wants to have. All children want an Olympic badge. They can then say that they have been to the Olympic Games.
1580
They can show that they were there and they can wear a badge with pride. The Olympic Games are so protective of the five circles that when Coca Cola, by mistake and quite genuinely, put five tiny circles on its bottles, even though Coca Cola was sponsoring the Olympics every single bottle was called in at a loss to the company of around £.; million. That was on one product and one set of five circles. So if anyone should come along with his own hamburger or bottle and put on it five circles, a great number of children will say, "This is the official one which will help me get a gold medal." That is what they say. That is how they think at that age. I and many other noble Lords thought like that at that age.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is a classic illustration of losing mineral rights. I take the noble Lord's point. But I should like clarification on one point. This measure controls what happens to that very precious commodity in this country. To what extent have comparable steps been taken under the law of other countries? We have jurisdiction only over what we say here. But can the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, inform us of the extent to which what we are doing is right and is being genuinely and altruistically promoted? We know that it is not a waste of time. But what about people in other parts of the world—the great areas of population of America, China and Asia? I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Archer, in saying that if there is a buck to be made, it should be made in the name of, given to and used by the bona fide Olympics association.
Perhaps I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Archer, why I take such a great interest in these matters. Besides knowing him and respecting his athletic prowess for many years, one of my early friends was a D'Oyly Carte singer, a girl called Sybil Evers. She married Harold Abrahams and they came to live in the Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire area about 40 years ago, beside the McWhirter twins. Harold Abrahams and Sybil Evers were not only great people whom I respected for their prowess, but also they were great ambassadors. As the noble Lord, Lord Archer, said, at the time of the Olympics, everybody is proud to find not only some means of identifying with the athletes and the country, but also with the concept. Therefore, with those few words from these Benches, we warmly support the ambitions and wish the amendments and the Bill well.
8 p.m.
Viscount Astor: On behalf of the Government I should like to say that I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and what was said by my noble friend Lord Archer. I should say to my noble friend that if he could still run as fast as he can speak forcefully, he would probably win a gold medal in the next Olympics.
The amendments that we have been discussing this evening are important. They close a loophole that may have been available to an unscrupulous user and again protect the rights of others with the amendments that I moved earlier. We are satisfied that the Bill, as amended, will satisfy both the interests of Olympic sport

1581
in this country and legitimate concerns raised in another place regarding existing and fair uses of controlled representation.
Perhaps I may say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, which really adds to what my noble friend Lord Archer said. In order to bid for the Olympic Games the Bill must be enacted. But much more important than that, by enacting the Bill, as I said at Second Reading, money will be able to flow into the British Olympic Association which will enormously improve our chance of bringing Olympic medals back to this country.
Lord Addington: Before the noble Lord puts the amendment to the Committee, from these Benches I should like to say that we too support the Motion. The amendments seem to be reasonable and positive and I hope that the Committee does not object to them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful for the general support for the amendments from all those who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lord Archer for his usual vehement style of supporting the Olympic movement, for which he is famous. I am delighted to know that he will monitor the situation carefully and ensure that nobody tries to infringe the Olympic right and symbol, to which we are all so attached.
My noble friend was also kind enough to give the noble Lord, Lord Graham, an indication of the kind of money that may be involved in the protection of the Olympic rights. It is not just the money that would have been lost before the passing of the legislation, but it is also the money that has been foregone by the difficulties that the Olympic Association experienced in marketing the Olympic symbol and the Olympic name to potential sponsors because of its inability to offer concrete exclusivity to such commercial sponsors. There was always a danger that somebody else would come along and devalue the sponsorship which was bought by well-meaning, commercial organisations in order to help the Olympic Association.
We shall not know until the legislation is passed and until the next Olympic Games how much it will be worth to the British Olympic Association. Like my noble friend Lord Archer I hope that it will be worth a good deal and go towards helping some of our young Olympic athletes to win gold the next time round.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about the situation overseas. The Bill only deals with the situation in this country. It covers the question of imports and therefore any goods which are imported from another country which attempt to infringe the Olympic symbol, will be caught by the Bill. Anyone who wants to import goods will have to negotiate an arrangement with the British Olympic Association, which will no doubt be able to charge for the proper use of that. Similar legislation exists in many countries throughout the world including, in Europe, Germany and Spain. I hope that with those words of explanation the Committee will be pleased to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 11:
Page 2, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert:
("(b) the person using the representation does not intend the work to be used in relation to goods or services in circumstances which would involve an infringement of the Olympics association right,").
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("(1A) The Olympics association right is not infringed by use of a controlled representation where—

(a) the use consists of use of a work of any of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (2) below, and

(b) the use of the work is not in relation to goods or services, provided the use of the representation is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.").

Page 3, line I, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
Page 3, line 1, after ("(1) (a)") insert ("and (1A) (a)").
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("(1) (b)") and insert ("(1A) (b)").
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("advertising or other promotion of') and insert ("any use in relation to").
Page 3, line 11, at end insert:
("() For the purposes of subsection (1A) (b) above, use of a work in relation to goods shall be disregarded where—

(a) the work is to any extent about the Olympic games or the Olympic movement, and

(b) the person using the work does not do so with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another.").

Page 4, line 43, at end insert:
("() In this section, references to use of a work in relation to goods include use of a work on goods.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 4 to 11, to which I have already spoken,en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Power to prescribe further limits on effect
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify additional cases in which the Olympics association right is not infringed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the matters by reference to which a case may be specified under that subsection include—

(a) the description of controlled representation used, and

(b) the description of persons by whom a controlled representation is used.

(3) An order under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provision and savings as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Burden of proof]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 38, after ("(1)") insert (", (1A)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 is consequential upon my earlier amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 9, line 38, after ("above") insert ("or any case specified under section (Power to prescribe further limits on effect) above").
Page 9, line 39, after ("subsection") insert ("or case").
The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 en bloc. I spoke to them with earlier amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1995
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1995. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to all four draft orders in my name on the Order Paper. Two have effect for Scotland, the others for England and Wales; three are concerned with setting rateable values, the other corrects a defect in our earlier regulations for setting transitional bills.
Noble Lords may remember that I moved several rating orders last December. At that time I explained to noble Lords why rateable values are prescribed for certain of the former public utilities. I hope I need to cover that ground only briefly again. A revaluation of all non-domestic property in Great Britain takes effect on 1st April 1995. While the majority of properties have their values assessed by the Valuation Office Agency, or in Scotland by the assessors, some present very special valuation difficulties. These are, by and large, public sector or ex-public sector companies where the property is so large or so unique that ordinary valuation methods will not suffice.
To overcome this problem the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have powers under the Local Government Finance Act of 1988 to prescribe rateable values. Broadly similar powers are held by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of the draft orders before the House today, the two orders for Scotland prescribe values for 1995 and subsequent years for the two national rail companies, British Rail and Railtrack; the other amends the 1995 English and Welsh order for electricity generators.
It is sometimes suggested that the prescription of rateable values in this way confers some kind of benefit on the ratepayers. That is a misunderstanding. The intention is to treat all ratepayers equally, regardless of whether their rateable values are determined by prescription or assessed by conventional valuation methods. The Secretaries of State seek the advice of the Valuation Office Agency and the Scottish Assessors' Association in reaching these values.
But prescription is not an ideal way to proceed and we have every intention of ending the practice as soon as possible. Whether we will be able to end it at the next revaluation, in the year 2000, for the industries which are the subject of our three orders today, is debatable. It is certainly our hope that the water supply industry, British Gas, the remaining statutory docks and harbours, the electricity distributors and the National Grid should proceed to conventional assessment by the VOA and the SAA in the year 2000. We have already started discussions with some of these bodies to that end. I can assure noble Lords, though, that we will consider very carefully the position of the electricity generators and the national rail network before concluding such a change would not be practicable for them at that time.
The two Scottish rateable values orders concern the railway network. These provide, for the next five years, for the determination of rateable values in relation to the British Railways Board and Railtrack operational lands and heritages. In the earlier debate, we approved equivalent provisions relating to England and Wales; these two orders make parallel provisions for Scotland as part of an aggregate Great Britain valuation. We have reviewed with the operators concerned the apportionment of the total value between the operators and among different rating areas. This now reflects the distribution of relevant properties and so we believe that the distribution of the rates burden is equitable. The orders have been agreed with those directly concerned.
The first English and Welsh draft order amends the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order which noble Lords approved last December. I must apologise to the House for bringing forward an amendment so soon. The rateable values for three electricity generating companies —National Power, PowerGen and Nuclear Electric—prescribed by the 1994 order, are in part based on those companies estimates of what their generating capacity will be on 31st March this year. Although those estimates were as good as they could be at the time, they may not be accurate. This amendment, therefore, allows for adjustments to be made should the estimates made at the time the 1994 order was laid before your Lordships differ from what will really be the case on 31st March.
Noble Lords might ask why we did not include the adjustment mechanism in the original order. The answer is that the need for the adjustment was suggested to us by the companies fairly late in the day, in the light of a number of uncertainties surrounding the estimates they were able to make at the time, and it has proved rather difficult to frame. Hence the late arrival before the House today. Perhaps I should explain what the rather perplexing formula in the draft order does.
The adjustment operates by multiplying the difference—expressed in megawatts—between the original estimate of end of year capacity and the actual figure, once that is known, by a sum drawn from the asset values of the rateable property of the companies themselves. The Nuclear Electric figure is higher than that for the two conventional generators because the asset value of nuclear plant is higher. The sums per megawatt arc the same sums as those used to make annual adjustments in rateable values in the 1989

1585
rateable values order. All the companies concerned in these three orders have been consulted about the content of the instruments. Indeed the change to the English and Welsh order is made at their prompting.
The fourth English and Welsh order corrects a defect in the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations 1994—a defect discovered very late in the day. I am most grateful to noble Lords for allowing time for this instrument to be debated. The regulations which this amending instrument corrects make certain provisions for phasing in the effects of the 1995 revaluation, so as to prevent unmanageably large and disruptive year to year changes in rate bills. This is a complex subject, and the regulations inevitably reflect that complexity. It will take me a little time to explain what the provisions of the regulations we are correcting do.
Like the other three instruments before the House today, they concern properties which have their values set by prescription rather than by conventional assessment. It was our intention to have rules for all properties, whether assessed by valuers or determined by orders, which would phase in the effect of changes in rateable values caused by the revaluation. However, property itself can change in extent and rateable values are rightly altered by such changes. Transitional arrangements should not apply to increases or decreases in bills brought about by changes in property, as opposed to revaluations of property.
For properties where values are set by order, changes in the extent of property are calculated annually at the start of each year using a formula, which is different for each type of property. This is known as the recalculation factor. This will mean that rateable values will change on 1st April because of both the revaluation and changes in property which occurred in the year beginning 1st April 1994. Our transitional regulations were intended to remove that change in property from the calculation of transitional arrangements. Once transition has been calculated any change in value brought about by the annual change in property would then be added back in, or subtracted from, the base liability to get the final bill.
Unfortunately, we now find that the original regulations do not quite secure this intended effect. The amending regulations would put matters right. The recalculation factor provided for in the original instrument is a cumulative one, not an annual one. That is to say, whereas we intended to exclude from the calculation of the transitional bill only the change in property during the year 1994–95 we have accidentally excluded the entirety of the change over the period from April 1990 to April 1995. No ratepayers have so far been affected by this. The end result would have been that next year some ratepayers would pay more than they should, some less.
In order to correct this defect we have added another step in the calculation: that of subtracting the cumulative total of all changes in property from 1990 to 1994 from the cumulative total of all changes in property from 1990 to 1995. Changes have had to be made in every part of the regulations where the previous factor was
1586
used, hence the length of the amending instrument. I repeat that this affects only central list ratepayers. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has asked me to say that he does not wish to oppose the orders and that he recognises the manner in which the Minister has been fair enough to indicate that the orders are to put right matters which ought perhaps to have been taken care of at an earlier stage. That is understood and accepted.
Perhaps the Minister can help me on two points. He referred to the global, almost amorphous, nature of the bodies covered. He then went through a list of other bodies that were perhaps waiting in the pipeline. I take it that that was an exhaustive list of all the other comparable bodies that would receive comparable treatment. I should be glad to know whether that is the case in order to get an idea of the future legislation.
Looking at the orders and looking at the proceedings in another place, it needs someone who is specialised in understanding these matters. Algebra was not one of my strong suits at school, so that excludes me. Am I right in understanding that the basis, ratification and validity of these matters as being fair have been the product of professional bodies who understand the philosophy of rating and who, in effect, have assisted the Government in producing, in these exceptional circumstances, the basis on which a rate is arrived at?
The last point is this. Just as one deals with rates in a personal capacity, there is an appeals procedure for objections. Can the Minister help the House very quickly by saying whether, if these orders go through, that will be the end of the matter, or can some elements of the industry or even individuals who may believe that they are advantaged or disadvantaged by the size of the rate which is levied, have recourse to appeal? Industry will want to pay as little as possible and if it does so then the rest of the population will have to pay a little more. Is there a protest or objection mechanism which is easily understood and available? I do not intend to speak again and the Minister need not spend much time giving me a reply tonight. He may feel that a written reply, which would be appreciated by my noble friend Lord Williams, may be the answer.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall do my best to seek to answer the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has put to me. First, I explained during the course of my remarks that some of the industries I mentioned will be conventionally assessed for the first time in 1995. We are dealing with public sector or ex-public sector industries. Others will have to remain in the prescribed assessment. These are the electricity supply companies, the water supply companies, British Gas and the national rail network including London Underground. They are bodies which I do not believe I mentioned. Also included are the larger ports.

1587
Industries moving towards conventional assessment in 1995 which were the subject of previous orders, are telecommunications, canals, Tyne and Wear Metro, the Docklands Light Railway and the medium-sized ports. Therefore, the noble Lord is quite right in that we are moving from the prescribed assessment to what one might call the more conventional form of assessment over a period of time. I indicated that there were some problems with the valuation of these large industries and that we would need to make a progression.
The noble Lord then asked me whether the Government had professional assistance in arriving at the valuations. It is done with the Valuation Office Agency and also with the Scottish Assessors' Association. I believe that gives the professional side of it. I have to say that it is done in agreement with the parties so that there is some consultation with them.
The noble Lord then asked me whether there was some form of appeal and objection to the assessments made. The answer to that is no. There is no appeal available to these industries once the matter has been set by Parliament. As I said before, there is the opportunity to discuss the rateable value with the department. As I indicated, that is done with the agreement of the parties. These orders are brought forward with their agreement. In that instance there is not the requirement for an appeal mechanism. All other industries which are not on the prescribed list procedure have a right of appeal, but in this particular instance they do not.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railtrack PLC (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995
8.25 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.30 p.m..]

Health Authorities Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Related amendments]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("; and—
(c) the Special Health Authority for Wales.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 32. Both amendments stand in my name and in those of my noble friends Lady Jay and Lord Carter. The aim of the two amendments is to guarantee the continued existence of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, as we know it. That is the authority which provides specialist services, often of considerable complexity, and requiring specialised equipment, highly qualified staff and economic operation throughout Wales.
The authority currently employs about 1,750 people. It has been tested in the hot fires of experience and it has passed the test with flying colours. Perhaps I may mention some of its successes. In 1992–93, 93 per cent. of artificial limbs were delivered early or on time. Indeed, the Artificial Limbs and Appliances Service was recently awarded a Chartermark by John Major. The authority checks about 33.7 million prescriptions per annum, with a value of £244 million per annum, and has achieved a high level of accuracy. Then there is Breast Test Screening, a service nearly of life and death significance. That is on course to achieve a 25 per cent. reduction in mortality by the year 2000. The authority's Estate Care Group has received many awards. Its design group is recognised as the leading hospital design unit in the UK. Furthermore, its procurement group, which was formed only recently on the reorganisation of supply functions in Wales, is doing well.
Therefore, it is fair to say that by common consent the authority's record has been good. However, I am sorry to say that the present Secretary of State for Wales, without the benefit of any independent investigation of the facts, is now intent on "untying"—that is the Welsh Office's word for the old word "destruction"—the services and that bank of skills, practical knowledge and experience which the authority has in abundance. The Secretary of State is intent on "untying" the organisation by April 1997. That radical departure in policy is the cause of worry in Wales as the potential damage is enormous.
I would not dream of wearying the Committee this evening by going through Amendment No. 32 line by line although my colleagues and I would be delighted to deal with each provision with the Minister if the Welsh Office were to say in reply to the debate that it is prepared to reconsider its decision. I must acknowledge that paragraph (d) implies the merger of the organisation with Health Promotion Wales.
The Welsh Health Common Services Authority owes its genesis to the NHS reforms of 1974. In fact, it was the creation of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Since then, there have been five Secretaries of State for Wales, four of whom have been Conservatives. From time to time since 1974, each Secretary of State has enhanced the role of that special authority. However, as I said earlier, the present Secretary of State has taken up a very different position.
In April of last year, the Secretary of State announced that three clinical services managed by the authority; namely, Artificial Limb Service, Breast Test Wales and National Blood Transfusion, would be moved (in his words)
"closer to the mainstream NHS"
as if the authority was far removed from the NHS. In fact, it is an integral part of the NHS in Wales. As for the remaining services, in a speech in the other place in June of last year, the Secretary of State announced—pretty arrogantly, many of us thought—that the staff were to take themselves into the private sector where they can compete against others. Since then he has imposed a recruitment freeze on the authority's administrative and clerical services. The Secretary of State can do that without the authority of Parliament.
There are at least three substantial grounds for concern about the Secretary of State's decision. The first is the fact that the special health authority is to be virtually disbanded without any evidence that that is necessary or that better standards of provision will be achieved. Surely a change of that order of magnitude ought to be soundly justified. We have been looking in vain for a justification.
The second ground for concern is the speed with which the decision has been taken and is being implemented when there is no need for urgency. There is no need for it to be given priority. In a letter from the Welsh Office dated 24th January this year, which is signed by a senior civil servant, Mr. R. C. Williams, the head of the Health Services Division of the Welsh Office, there is clear evidence that the decision has been rushed. In paragraph 2 of his letter, Mr. Williams states that the implications of the transfer of those major services from the special authority have been evaluated:
"So far as was practicable in the time available, the options, criteria and weightings were tested with relevant interests in the field".
We are disturbed by that sentence. What is suggested is that there has been a model, or an hypothesis, which has been tested properly by known methods for undertaking that process, but nowhere in that letter, or in any other letter, are we told what were the criteria and the weightings.
Moreover, the pattern and context of the consultation have not been disclosed. Thus, we do not know whether the "relevant interests" include the people who are dependent upon the services or donors to the blood transfusion service. Indeed, I have been told that the testing amounted to little more than that certain ideas about how the services might be organised were put to a selected few who went along with the ideas.
The fact remains that the so-called testing was limited "so far as was practicable in the time available". I want to pay tribute to Mr. Williams the author of that letter, for his integrity. He has at least brought his reservation to the surface. I wonder whether I might ask the Minister to place in the Library, before Report, full particulars of the options that were tested; the criteria which were applied; and the weightings that were calculated. May we have the names of the parties who were consulted? In what capacity they were consulted? Over what period of time were they consulted? With that information to hand, we can ask more questions and be satisfied whether justice has been done or denied. Or are we in Parliament asking too much of a department in requesting that that information be deposited in the Library?
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the letter of 24th January deal inadequately with the funding and management of these essential services which are to be transferred to the private sector or which are to be decentralised. The first sentence of paragraph 5 refers to the funds that are "being repatriated". That is a pretty novel use of the word "repatriated" in this context, because those services have not been performed at a local level; they have been centralised at the Welsh level.
The implicit risks emerge in the second sentence. There may be a flaw in the English here but I have checked it and it reads:
"The intention is to maintain steady state and avoid destabilisation of these services as new management arrangements come into force".
Then in the third sentence we are told that the funding is to be ring-fenced for 1995–96 and 1996–97. We stress that if the continuity of those services is considered by the Welsh Office to be important—it is important—then expenditure on them should not be liable to local discretion at the end of 1996–97. Surely the ring-fencing should stretch far beyond 1996–97.
Finally, Mr. Williams speaks of the need for authorities to adopt consortium or lead purchaser arrangements for the artificial limb service as it is, in Mr. Williams's words, "a complex operation".
I come to the third point of our serious disquiet. Just as one feels that inadequate attention has been paid to patients and potential patients, so one feels also that the staff of the special authority are being treated as if they were objects to be moved about like puppets on a string at the whim of the Secretary of State for Wales. I can assure the Committee that there is immense uncertainty among the 1,750 people employed by the special authority. There will be redundancies. There may be early retirements. For married staff, there is concern also about the position of their families: 12 months from now will they be in work or unemployed? Will they be able to live in or about Cardiff or will they have to move elsewhere in Wales? If they have to move elsewhere in Wales, will they be able to sell their homes? Will that upset the children's education? Do those considerations matter to the Secretary of State?
In our view, it is inexcusable for the Secretary of State to have refused to meet a deputation from UNISON, whose members will be directly affected by the Minister's decision. Can that decision be

1591
reconsidered? It appears to us that the present Welsh Secretary's prime objective in his dealings with the Welsh health service is merely to encourage competition. It is our submission that his goals are much too narrow, and prohibit us from thinking in a creative way towards a better health system for Wales. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I support the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He did not spell out his credentials for speaking on the amendment. I remember him, of course, as a leading member of the old Welsh Hospital Board before reorganisation in 1974. I instanced that because it is important to emphasise that the need for an all-Wales structure in health service provision dates back to those days. A regional health authority was not created for Wales; the Welsh Office carried out that function and in order to do so it had to establish specialist agencies which delivered those services on an all-Wales basis.
That is what our debate tonight is really all about: whether we should have a special health authority covering those specialist services, which were mentioned in detail by the noble Lord, or whether we should entrust the delivery of those services to patients and the users of health services in Wales to the market testing proposals announced by the Secretary of State, to the transfer of clinical services to the so-called mainstream NHS services, and to the market testing of non-clinical services.
It seems that the Government are not clear about the health service objectives of their proposals. In Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Rod Richards, emphasised that when the market testing exercise had been completed the department would be able to form a view on the functions that still needed to be carried out at the all-Wales level.
That is a complete reversal of how one should approach the whole question of the delivery of services. If we have a way of operating the specialist services which are already functioning effectively on an all-Wales level, to market test, and then, as it were, look for residual services that need to be provided at that level demonstrates a failure to understand the complexity of health service delivery, particularly in an area such as Wales.
I am concerned also about two other aspects of the proposals. A detail has been drawn to my attention by the trade union (UNISON) which is involved with the authority and by certain GPs; namely, the linguistic implications of the changes. At the moment, it is possible for a family practitioner to write a prescription in the Welsh language if the local pharmacist can take that prescription, and to know that there are arrangements within the present prescription pricing mechanism which enable that to be dealt with. If that service were to be contractorised, it is not clear whether that would still be the case. Within the terms of the Welsh Language Act, with which I have a certain affiliation, it seems clear that if the policy is to be fulfilled it is essential that that should still be the case. If contractorisation removes that service outside Wales,
1592
it may well be difficult for that need to be met. That is a specific service which is currently available. I should like the department's view, either directly from the Minister or later from the Welsh Office.
There is another aspect which concerns me; namely, the role of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. The authority has had a long record of partial success in tackling very difficult issues of national ill-health within the Principality. I speak as someone who was an admirer of the earlier initiatives of Sir John Catford, who is obviously no longer in favour with the Government. Heartbeat Wales and other initiatives affected the lifestyles of people within Wales and certainly affected the high level of heart disease risk as a result of diet, lack of exercise and lifestyle which was unfortunately part of our historical baggage.
My concern is that although health promotion is being transferred to DHAs which have a health promotion role, that role will reduce the national profile of health promotion. I believe that Heartbeat Wales and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales initiatives were able to provide an all-Wales profile as regards lifestyle issues relating to preventive health care. For all those reasons, together with those set out by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I believe that the present proposals of the Welsh Office are a step backwards. I do not see the healthcare justification for the proposals and, as the noble Lord said, the communications from the department indicate an internal tension among the department's officials who care about the delivery of services and who have a long record of delivering the services under different governments and Secretaries of State, which may be more relevant in this discussion. In the official communications, one can detect an ambiguity and a tension.
Therefore, I hope that the Government and the Welsh Office will take a further look at the matter. If they cannot meet our request for special treatment for the national agencies which already exist, at least they should ensure that there will be no reduction in the level either of health promotion for health protection or the delivery of those services which have been made available previously on a national level for all parts of Wales.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Although I cannot speak with the same authority and expertise as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies or the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I give them my support as, I suppose, an exiled Welshman. It is shocking that an authority which, as my noble friend pointed out, has given such outstanding service over such a long period of time should be now under threat of destruction within two short years. Surely that cannot be right.
My noble friend mentioned the services which have been administered by that body. There is no need for me to elaborate because he dealt with it so well. However, I know that it is dangerous to interfere with something which has worked so well and so smoothly over such a long period of time. The problem with this Government, not only in relation to the health service but in every other aspect of public life, is that they are market-testing mad. We never really know whether their market-testing

1593
madness is doing well or doing badly. My guess is that in very many cases it is doing extremely badly indeed. But, with services like these, we really cannot afford to take the risk of market-testing when we know that the present administration has been doing the job well over a period of time.
The present Secretary of State, who represents Wokingham—I live very near there—is an intelligent man. Let us make no mistake about it; he is an extremely intelligent gentleman. I cannot understand why he has embarked on this particular route and why he is ignoring Welsh opinion, particularly bearing in mind the sensitivity of the Welsh people regarding his occupation of the post of Welsh Secretary without having any background in the Principality. One would have thought that he would tread very, very carefully indeed. But no, so far as I can see he is riding roughshod over local opinion. I believe that he will regret that.
As my noble friend pointed out, there has been a lack of consultation in a country where people become very involved and are very concerned about their public services. They do not see them at arm's length. They like to involve themselves in their services because they know, through bitter experience, that it is those services which keep them afloat when times are bad. I lived in the Rhondda Valley when times were very bad indeed. It was the protection of the public services and the Co-op, I might say, which kept us going through those very bad times.
That fact was brought home to me last year when I had the honour to be the chief guest of the mayor at the Rhondda centenary celebrations. The people have not changed since I was there. They still value their public services and still believe that they should be carried out, not in some sort of competitive way, but by people who are dedicated to the task. Now they see that the authority which has been doing the job so well for so long is to be wound up.
As my noble friend pointed out, the staff of the authority must be very unsettled and concerned about their future. I believe that there are about 1,700 of them. In Wales, which is a comparatively small country, that is a significant number of people. They are entitled to receive assurances about their future. One of the reasons they are worried about their future is the failure of the Government to agree to consult them about what is going on in spite of the fact that my noble friend and I have requested that such consultation should go ahead. It is little wonder that they have very little confidence in what is being done. I should like the assurances for which my noble friend has asked this evening. If they are not given this evening, they should be given at some time in the future. The staff will expect to be consulted and to be given assurances about their future within any organisation which may replace the present authority. When she replies, I hope that the Minister will show that she understands and appreciates the strength of feeling that there is over the issue and that she will perhaps help us by giving us some decent information.
9 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I should say, with trepidation, that I recognise the fact that I am now entering into foreign territory. However, I should tell Members of the Committee that I spent a very happy day on Friday in the Brecon Beacons. As a former chairman of the national association, I remember conversations that I used to have with my Welsh colleagues and how much I used to marvel at their luxury of not having a regional tier. Of course, they have not had a regional tier since 1974, but the amendments would go a long way to reintroducing one and imposing additional bureaucracy.
Members of the Committee will also be aware that the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales are both established by secondary legislation. Nothing presently in the Bill would prevent their continuance for as long as they are needed. The common services authority was the subject of a review last year, following which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced that clinical services would be returned to the mainstream NHS and non-clinical services would be market tested.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked for the criteria as regards whether market testing had been successful. There are a number of criteria that one could use but perhaps one of them might be the savings. We know that savings have been made through market testing now reaching £1 billion. That money has been reinvested directly into patient services. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am much obliged. The Minister mentioned a figure of £1 billion. Does that refer to Wales or to the whole of the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that that applies to England and Wales.
Whatever the eventual outcomes of the present exercise for the many different parts of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority—the achievements of which, I have to say, I happily acknowledge—it is the needs of the organisations, and the patients who rely upon them, that will be the driving force for the change. The very processes being followed will ensure that. I cannot believe that they will necessarily have to remain part of one single organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was very concerned that decisions are being rushed through at present. However, there has been very careful discussion with service users and consultation with the NHS. Those responses are being considered at the moment. As regards the details of the options previously considered, perhaps I may ask my Welsh colleagues to write to the noble Lord. I shall do the same in respect of the detailed issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Several noble Lords mentioned the need for a central services authority which dates back to the 1970 reforms. I recognise that the common services authority was expanded over the years. Again, I should like to pay tribute to its many successes. However, I should also

1595
like Members of the Committee to recognise that the NHS reforms fundamentally changed its position. Trusts need freedom now to introduce different mechanisms and services to support them.
Our aim is that the NHS in Wales should be able to assess the many support services it needs by the most cost-effective means. Our overriding interest is that NHS trusts should provide more and better patient care for the same money. It is no longer tenable to have a large central organisation. When the current exercise is completed, we shall be able to form a view as to which functions will still need to be carried out at the all-Wales level.
I turn now to the employees of the WHCSA. I do not speak Welsh, but I believe that that acronym is pronounced "Weksa". The employees have made a valuable and much appreciated contribution to the NHS in Wales. I well understand that the uncertainty they face is very difficult for them. However, the process itself provides for consultation with staff. I hope that they will come to see it as an opportunity to improve the services that they provide. Handling the process is a matter for WHCSA's own management. That is why Welsh Ministers have declined to meet staff-side representatives whose interests are best served by the proper working through of the process itself.
The role of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales has changed in recent years, as the health promotion role of district health authorities and family health services authorities has grown in importance. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Richards, is currently reviewing the delivery of health promotion in Wales, including the future role of the authority. The results of his review are expected shortly.
In both reviews, the focus should be on responding flexibly to the evolving needs of the health service and, more importantly, to its patients. However, the proposed new clause would require all flexibility to be forfeited. It prejudges how all those services should be provided and allows no means, short of new primary legislation, for revising that judgment. It also asks us to take a leap of faith in abolishing both WHCSA and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, transferring their functions to a new body with a new management. It would also make the new body responsible for processing health complaints.
As I said earlier, the Government have published their proposals on the subject in the past few days. They constitute a welcome streamlining of present arrangements, and are far superior to the proposal implicit in the suggested new clause for a new, centralised, bureaucratic and wholly rigid management in Wales.
The Artificial Limb and Appliance Service, Breast Test Wales, and the National Blood Transfusion Service, Wales, have recently reviewed the options for the future management of the services that they provide. Having considered their conclusions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has recently consulted on the propositions that management arrangements for the National Blood Transfusion Service, Wales, should not change for the time being; that management of the screening programme of Breast
1596
Test Wales should transfer to a single trust; and that the Artificial Limb and Appliance Service should, in general, be managed by the hospitals where they are based but some specialist services might best be provided from a single point.
I do not wish to prejudge my right honourable friend's consideration of the responses to his consultation. However, I should like to point out that the proposed amendments would not only anticipate a reasoned judgment of the best way forward in the light of those responses, but would also require that one particular set of administrative arrangements should be set in legislative concrete. In the light of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Elis-Thomas for their staunch support of the amendment. In view of one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I should make clear that I was chairman of a Welsh hospital board from 1968 to 1974. That was many years ago; it was an unpaid office. However, I have not moved the amendment out of some nostalgic loyalty for the integrity of the excellent staff of that old Welsh hospital board. My basic reason for moving the amendment is our profound belief that the Secretary of State is making a huge mistake.
The Minister, with her usual courtesy, has disagreed with the amendment, as I feared she would. But she really has not disagreed in detail with a number of the basic points we advanced. With deepest respect to the Minister I must say that I, for my part, am wholly dissatisfied with her general comments. The Minister has not given specific confirmation that she will place the information that we have requested in the Library before Report stage. In our submission we are entitled to know what options were considered. The Minister said that the three clinical services were asked to consider the options and to produce their schemes. However, they were under instructions to do so from the Secretary of State for Wales. I ask the Minister to ensure, if she can, that the options, the criteria and the weightings are set out in a document in the Library. May we also have full particulars of the parties who were consulted? The Minister used a general phrase. We are asking for further and better particulars of that statement.
I also trust that we can soon have a satisfactory reply to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. We want assurances that the use of the Welsh language will not be prejudiced in any respect by whatever decisions the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, decides to impose. We are entitled to that confirmation. If we do not get it, it appears to me that he is flying in the face of the principles of the Government's policy as set out in the Welsh Language Act 1993.
It may be our fault that the Minister has not fully understood our case, but we will have to consider carefully what has been said. The Chamber this evening can hardly be described as full. Nevertheless, we will consider what has been said. It is clearly inappropriate

1597
to test the feelings of the Committee this evening and therefore I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendments]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 14. I now call Amendment No. 13.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("persons") in line 20.
The noble Baroness said: The patients are the most important group in the health service. I think we would all agree with that. But, after the patients, no one is more important than the medical practitioners, the registered nurses and the registered midwives. Therefore my amendment in no way seeks to denigrate them or to reduce their importance. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 states,
"Every Health Authority shall make arrangements for securing that they receive"
appropriate advice. I consider that to remove the reference to,
"medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives"
would not in any way damage the paragraph because the advice would then come from,
"persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care".
Medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives are all included in that phrase. Throughout today it has been said again and again that the Government do not wish to be prescriptive in the legislation. The three groups designated in the schedule seem to me an example of being prescriptive. Their inclusion in the Bill therefore seems contrary to the line taken on every other amendment moved today. If we are to retain the reference to those three groups of personnel, I believe there is every justification for the case put to me by pharmacists who have asked why they are not included. I notice that the following amendment seeks to include registered health visitors in the schedule. What about dentists, osteopaths and chiropractors? We could mention a great many groups of people who would like to be included in the schedule. They all feel that they are equally important as the three groups which are named.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, suggested that those groups are closest to patients. That is arguable, and it is also variable depending on the individuals involved and the areas in which they work. We heard from my noble friend Lord Carr that in his area community pharmacists are very close to patients. Therefore, one cannot say that those groups are named because they are the only professionals who are close to patients.
I believe that either we should not refer to any category but limit the reference in the Bill to people with professional expertise in and experience of healthcare or
1598
we should enlarge the list of those named to cover each and every one of the health professions to make clear that we believe that they should all be included.
I do not believe that any further presentation on the amendment is required. The position is perfectly clear, particularly in the light of comments made earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: This is a very ingenious approach to the problem, which the noble Baroness explained extremely well. It appears that the intention is to exclude some in order to please all. I should be interested to know what criteria the health authority would use to choose the persons with professional expertise in and experience of healthcare if subparagraph (a) is omitted. The noble Baroness has ingeniously used a very wide definition. I entirely understand and support the anxiety of pharmacists, and all the other professions which are not mentioned, because—to use a football analogy—they seem to have been relegated to the second division as the Bill is worded.
The Minister has a very interesting choice to make when responding to the amendment. Either she accepts the amendment and infuriates everyone referred to in subparagraph (a), or she rejects it and infuriates all those encompassed in subparagraph (b). I shall be extremely interested to learn how she deals with the amendment.
Lord Rea: I shall say the same as my noble friend, but in different words. In contrast to Amendment No. 20 which the noble Baroness will move later, I oppose this amendment. I have to declare an interest as a general practitioner. However, I feel that the amendment would weaken the influence of the main professionals working in the National Health Service, particularly those named in the Bill, who would be deleted by the amendment. However, I do not feel that the amendment strengthens the case of the other professionals to be consulted or to act as advisers since instead of having a subparagraph in the Bill to themselves, they would have to share the same line with doctors, nurses and midwives, who are more numerous.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has misunderstood the amendment. They would not share the same line; the line would be replaced.
Lord Rea: But they would be included in the same line in the end. I suggest that, being included in the same line as the nurses and doctors, there would be more chance of their being forgotten than if they had a line to themselves as they do now. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment or that, if she does not, the Minister will gently oppose it.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: I should like to say a word about the amendment. The purpose of the amendment to the National Health Service Act is to ensure that health authorities take advice. When one considers the enormous range of duties of the health authorities it is clear that they have to take advice from a wide range of health professionals. I shall be interested

1599
if my noble friend the Minister can explain why the three categories of health professionals mentioned in the Schedule have been selected so that special attention is drawn to them on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, he will know that the training for every Minister takes place on a high wire and one has to perform a balancing act.
Lord Carter: They fall off occasionally.
Baroness Cumberlege: That is undisputed.
I understand my noble friend's anxiety. The provision she seeks to amend was added to the Bill in another place because of the concern felt across the professions that their involvement in health authority decisions should not simply be left as a matter of good practice. We had already made clear in draft guidelines which were circulated widely to the professions and the NHS that involving healthcare professionals was not an optional extra. The amendment which the Government tabled in another place added weight to the guidelines which outlined the areas where professional involvement will be needed. These include strategic development of services, developing primary care services and contracting decisions.
The Government's provision makes particular mention of doctors and nurses, including midwives, as do the draft guidelines. There is no implication here that health authorities will have fulfilled their statutory duty by consulting doctors and nurses. They must involve a whole range of professions. This point is stressed in the draft guidelines—they list 20 or so different groups—and is made clear in the provision itself which covers everyone with,
"professional expertise in and experience of health care".
Doctors and nurses are the largest groups of healthcare professionals. They are involved in virtually every aspect of patient care in hospital, community and primary care settings. It is appropriate to give them special mention in this amendment but I repeat that other groups have an equally important contribution to make in their areas of special expertise. I urge my noble friend to reconsider and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for her reply and the other participants for their exchange of views. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the main professionals. I did not like the word "main". It seems to confirm exactly what I said: that those three groups were more important than anyone else in the health service.
Lord Rea: Perhaps the noble Baroness did not hear me. I qualified that remark by saying "the most numerous".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I did not understand the noble Lord to say that. I note that the Minister said that. I had intended to ask the noble Lord whether he referred to numbers when he used the word "main". His intervention cheers me greatly. The important point is—
1600
it is the point that I seek to make in proposing the amendment—that all health professionals are equally important in the overall pattern of team care for patients.
The Minister stated that consultation must involve the whole range of professionals. She referred to about 20 groups. That statement in Hansard will give considerable reassurance to people who have been worried that they are being overlooked or, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, put into the second team.
I shall read what has been said, as I am sure will others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert ("and registered Health Visitors").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment adds health visitors to Schedule 1(3) (a). However, I certainly take to heart the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Clearly a whole range of professionals is absolutely crucial in delivering health services to patients. Patients, of course, must be the first criterion that we address when dealing with the Bill and its effects.
We assessed that Amendment No. 13 probably would not be agreed and decided to leave Amendment No. 14 on the Marshalled List. The logic underlying the amendment derives from the 1979 Act which specifies nurses, midwives and health visitors. We believe that the provision adds to the Bill.
Health visitors play a crucial role in the delivery of healthcare. They visit families in their homes—something that many nurses and doctors do not have the opportunity or the need to do on a regular basis. They play a key role, too, in child protection matters. It is not as though the patient comes to them in the health environment. Health visitors go into the home and see the family and children. They see the family in the round, whether it is a single parent or two-parent family. They see the circumstances in which the family live and the way in which that affects the family's health matters.
The provision is particularly important as health visitors increasingly play a bigger role because of the drawdown in social service support in the community. It is equally important, as much health care is now being delivered in the home; and quite rightly so. More health care takes place outside the hospital, which is right and good for the community and the family. Since that is the case, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I do not venture to suggest that she does not recognise the valued service that health visitors give and their crucial role within the community. I therefore hope that the amendment finds favour and is accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity to emphasise the importance of the role of health visitors and the part they will play in the new health authorities. She is right in supposing that I have long been an admirer of that section of the nursing profession. I have a little

1601
understanding of the difficult work they undertake and the impact they can have in strengthening parents' confidence and abilities in bringing up their families.
Let me make it clear that the new duty in the Bill requiring health authorities to secure professional advice certainly includes health visitors. There should be no doubt about this. Health authorities will be under a statutory obligation to involve health visitors in their work where their special skills and experience are relevant.
Health visitors are, of course, registered nurses who have gone on to take an additional specialist qualification. They are therefore already within the provision. The definition "registered nurse" also covers many other specially qualified nurses such as district nurses, mental health nurses and so on. I know, though, that health visitors have a particularly distinct professional role.
The draft guidelines on professional involvement, on which the Government have just finished consulting, reflect that. The guidelines highlight the vital role of health visitors in child protection, mentioned by the noble Baroness. Of course, they have a much broader contribution to make in health needs assessment, prevention of illness and health promotion because of their close involvement with families and children and the local communities in which they live. My department's good practice document,Targeting Practice, provides many examples of the contribution that health visitors make to The Health of the Nation targets.
I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment is not required and that health visitors will be firmly involved in the new health authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw it.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly the reference to the guidelines on which consultation has just concluded. That is helpful, but it does not answer the point about having "health visitors" on the face of the Bill as a requirement. However, I take encouragement from what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert:
(" "(1A) The Secretary of State shall give directions with respect to the exercise of the responsibilities exercised prior to the passing of the Health Authorities Act 1995 by Regional Health Authorities in respect of—

(a) the holding of contracts of registrars and senior registrars, and

(b) the organisation and rotation of medical staff placements, so as to require that those responsibilities should continue to be exercised on a regional basis." ").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I wish to thank the officials in the Box for supplying me with a draft of the memorandum on options for the future management of postgraduate medical education
1602
which is to be placed in the Library tomorrow. I shall refer later to the document which I have had only a brief chance to read.
The amendment seeks to retain the current arrangement whereby the contracts of junior doctors above senior house officer level are held on a regional basis. There are several reasons for wanting to retain the arrangement. Registrars and senior registrars are in training to become consultants. They have special requirements as part of that training. The requirements are facilities for consultants to give them tutorials and time for study. The junior doctors should be regarded as a national and not a local resource since from their ranks will come the next generation of specialists. They often need to move during training rotation from one hospital or community trust to another to obtain the relevant experience—sometimes crossing borders of health authorities.
At present junior doctors are employed on national terms and conditions of service so as to maintain high standards throughout the National Health Service. Devolution of their contracts to trusts would, we feel, jeopardise these arrangements. These training posts need to be overseen by someone independent of the trust for which they are working at a particular time to ensure, for example, as I mentioned earlier, that time is set aside during the course of a week in which consultants can teach juniors. If it is left entirely to the trust, pressure of work might well seem to be a higher priority. This amendment would ensure that these important concerns are addressed.
I turn briefly, after a very cursory reading, to the new memorandum. I have to say that I find it quite confusing. Instead of coming down firmly for one solution, it offers several choices. I feel almost certainly that the authors of this memorandum were fully aware that the issues were contentious. It seems to be another example of making up legislation as you are going along. There are options in the memorandum which it seems will be given out for consultation.
Employment contracts for junior doctors—which is the topic of the amendment—could, according to the memorandum, be organised in three different ways. I refer to the document itself:
"all contracts to be held by the Trust responsible for the hospital in which the doctor is working…contracts to be held by a nominated 'lead Trust' for the training programme in that specialty, with junior doctors working on secondment for the other Trusts participating in the rotation",
or,
"all contracts held by a single 'lead Trust' for the region, either the Trust with the most training posts overall…or a 'neutral" Trust"'—
whatever that is.
"Again junior doctors would be seconded to the other Trusts providing training on a rotational basis".
A fourth alternative is also offered; namely,
"the possibility of the contracts being held by a purchasing health authority".
I do not honestly feel that any of those options answers the problems that I outlined would occur if the current satisfactory arrangements are interfered with. The document turns down altogether the option of a contract being held by the health commissioning

1603
(purchasing) authority; and it does not mention at all, so far as I have read, the possibility of the contract being held by either the postgraduate dean or the regional health commissioner.
While, of course, we have to study this document with greater care, it does not offer an answer which would allow me to withdraw this amendment. It is quite important that the principles enunciated in the amendment should be adhered to. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has not really had time to read this document. But if he had just read the next sentence he would have noted that,
"The NHS Executive's preferred option is for all contracts of NHS employees",
and so on. But I am sure that we shall return to the subject on Thursday when we discuss the other amendments.
Perhaps I may put this matter into some context. There are two distinct issues in relation to the contracts of registrars and senior registrars—whose contracts are currently held by regional health authorities. First, employment contracts need to be held elsewhere when RHAs go. Secondly, the continuity and quality of training programmes need to be properly protected under any new arrangements. It is our intention that the training programmes of registrars and senior registrars, and in the future those doctors in the proposed new unified training grade, will be managed at regional level by the postgraduate medical deans.
We are currently discussing the detail with the deans but we envisage the negotiation by the deans with NHS trusts of educational contracts. The doctors themselves might also be party to those contracts. Such contracts would ensure that the quality and continuity of training is protected while also recognising trusts' responsibilities for the effective delivery of services to patients.
It will not be necessary for the doctors' employment contracts also to be held at regional level to safeguard the doctors' training interests. It would not be right for them to be held by the regional offices as part of the Civil Service.
As we made clear in the report published in the summer,Managing the new NHS, our preferred option is for contracts to go to trusts. That is consistent with the treatment of other medical staff, with the principle that personnel issues are generally best managed at local employer level and with trust freedoms to determine the quantity and type of resources that they employ.
The Government have tabled amendments which we shall debate at a later stage in Committee. When we come to debate those amendments, I shall be able to explain more fully the safeguards that we propose to enable contracts to be held by trusts.
We are committed to high quality medical education and training, which underpins our objective of providing high quality healthcare to patients. The interests of the profession, universities and postgraduate deans will be taken fully into account in developing the detailed
1604
framework for medical education and training. We shall ensure that the staff concerned are treated fairly and that continuity and quality of training is maintained. Therefore I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a logistics question. Is she saying that the Government will bring forward amendments which encompass the proposals in the document published today on the second day of Committee stage of this Bill or will they be left to a later stage?
Baroness Cumberlege: When we come to the amendments, I shall be able to explain more fully the safeguards that we propose to enable these contracts to be held by trusts. At the moment, the proposal is that the contracts should be split: educational contracts to be held with the postgraduate medical deans and the normal employment contracts to be held with the trusts. I shall go into this matter much more fully. I appreciate that the Committee has not had a chance to see the consultation document, which is the key to much of this debate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry to pursue this matter, but does it therefore mean that this will be discussed in detail on Report?
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understood it, it will he at Committee stage on Thursday.
Lord Rea: What the noble Baroness said is extremely interesting. I am sure that her words will be read with great care by all the Royal colleges, the British Medical Association, many universities and all those practitioners in the field concerned with postgraduate medical education. As I said, we shall also study this document in greater detail. I am sorry if I misinterpreted some of its recommendations, but we shall come back, having digested the document more fully. I also hope to discuss the matter with the colleges and the British Medical Association before we debate it again in Committee. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert:
("(c) of responsibilities exercised prior to the passing of the Health Authorities Act 1995 by Regional Health Authorities in respect of public health initiatives requiring that those responsibilities should continue to be provided on a regional basis.").
The noble Baroness said: The issue of the present structure of regional health authorities, the duties and responsibilities that they carry and how they will be transferred to the new health authorities form a theme that has run through the whole of our debates on the Health Authorities Bill. It came up at Second Reading and has come up today as well.
There is a lot of concern that many of the regional features of the present regional health authorities will go by the board. In fact, they will no longer be carried out at a regional level. This amendment will have the effect

1605
of ensuring that the best key features which are currently carried out at regional level will continue to be carried out.
At the moment regional health areas, and particularly the regional director of health, has a standing in the community on a whole range of issues. For instance, if there was a factory being built that was going to create a lot of pollution, the regional director of public health could be brought in and express a view on behalf of the people in the community. He could be consulted on new developments and general health issues in the region. The regional director of public health is currently required also to commission an independent report for the regional health authority on the population in the region. That report is drawn together from the districts. It assesses the need for regional specialist services—an area about which we have expressed concern during the discussions on the Bill—the development of teaching facilities and links with universities.
A question that we raise in relation to the provisions of the Health Authorities Bill is that, when one sees the transfer of regional staff, including the executive person, into the national health executive as an employee, thus becoming a civil servant, it is difficult to understand how that person can be accepted in the eyes of the local community as a person of independence; someone whose voice speaks purely from the health point of view and not necessarily from the fiscal point of view with all its usual constraints. It is not simply a matter of implementation therefore; it is also anxieties about the enactment of the responsibilities of the regional public health director.
Perhaps the Minister will address a number of questions when she responds to the amendment. Will the regional director, while a civil servant, continue to publish the annual reports? Will he have independence or be required to conduct himself as a civil servant with the obvious understandable constraints on him as an individual that that implies when carrying out the job? Will constraints be placed upon him in carrying out how he sees what is a wide-ranging remit?
At first glance it may appear that there will not be a great deal of difference; it will still be the same people. But in fact the functioning of this responsible area of work may be considerably different. It is that, linked with the specialist services, linked with what is needed in the region in relation to teaching facilities, technology and links with universities, that need to come from regional level and which themselves will feed into a national policy directorate. How will the Bill address those concerns? We do not believe that the Bill as it stands addresses them. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: Today and earlier in our Second Reading debate we heard a great deal about the crucial role played by regional health authorities in public health, leading the way in new policies, taking the strategic overview of the so-called Cinderella services, spearheading specific health of the nation projects, supporting health promotion, creating health alliances, leading local purchasers in creating a knowledge-based, effectiveness-led NHS. It has been a record of highly creditable achievement.
1606
The public health role of the new regional offices will continue to be crucial, but it will be different in character. The role was spelt out last summer in the NHS executive document,Public Health in England: Roles and Responsibilities of the Department of Health and the NHS. That report emphasised that, subject to our deliberations on the Bill, regional directors of public health and the new regional offices of the NHS executive will be responsible for ensuring that public health considerations drive the work of the new regional offices and ensure that public health functions are discharged effectively in each of the regions.
Some public health functions previously undertaken by regional health authorities can safely be devolved to the new health authorities with their larger resident populations. An important example is the purchase of breast cancer screening services. However, we recognise that a number of the present regional public health functions are more efficiently organised for populations larger than even the biggest of the new authorities.
An executive letter issued to the NHS on 10th March of this year identified four such functions. Those are: work associated with a confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy; the purchase of cancer registry services; the purchase of quality assurance services for breast and cervical cancer screening; and the appointment of doctors under Section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Subject to the passage of this legislation, responsibility for these four functions will pass to a lead health authority which will undertake the work on behalf of all health authorities in the region, supported and monitored by the regional office. We believe that this approach allows decisions to be taken, as far as possible, at the local level where they can be influenced by the professional staff with most knowledge of the relevant health needs and healthcare services. It allows the necessary strategic view to be taken and permits more effective monitoring. Public health staff in the regional offices will have an important responsibility to ensure, through close liaison with a range of healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, that health needs are properly assessed, outcomes reviewed and appropriate responses put in place.
The noble Baroness asked me whether the regional director in future will publish annual reports. I would expect them to contribute very heavily to the chief medical officer's annual report which covers all England and Wales. But in the future we would expect local health authorities to publish their own annual reports, part of which would, of course, take into account the public health aspects. It would be inconceivable for a health authority to publish a report without that important underpinning of expertise and knowledge. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I regret the fact that the Minister's answer does not give me much comfort. It goes no way towards meeting the questions

1607
and points that I raised. However, I recognise that it would not be very constructive to divide the Committee at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 44, after ("area") insert ("provided that no such council shall be a council for an area larger than the area of the council for the area of the Area or District Health Authority which that Health Authority has replaced").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that community health councils are not overburdened under the reorganisation. Where two district health authorities are replaced by one new health authority it is essential that both those community health councils are preserved. One cannot demand of a community health council that it should cover an area twice the size that it has previously covered. The members are all volunteers. They give an enormous amount of their time. As the Minister agreed, they have given invaluable service, advice and help to the health service. They are the main statutory bodies representing the general public. It is important that they should not be given too much to do where they cannot possibly fulfil the demands which the general public will make on them. Where two district health authorities are put together, I ask the Minister to agree that there should be_ two community health councils serving that health authority or that the number of people on the community health council should be doubled. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in this amendment. It is a very good opportunity to emphasise that the new arrangements for health authorities should in no way diminish the contribution which community health councils can and should make to the operations of the National Health Service, particularly given the abolition of the regions and the enlargement of some of the purchasing authorities to bring the concerns of the health service down to the level of the users and the patients.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, it is very important that these purely volunteer bodies should not be given excessive burdens to administer. As I understand it —perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it is not yet clear from the regulations or schedules who will employ the one executive director of the community health councils now employed from the regional health authority.
I believe that all this is sending a message to community health councils who are extremely hard pressed and who do an enormous amount of good work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, and as I have just mentioned myself, they are entirely staffed by volunteers with the exception of the one staff person. They should not be asked to extend their responsibilities beyond the areas which they now embrace which sometimes are quite large, given the few people involved.
1608
The other side of the coin is that if the CHCs have to extend to a larger area than that embraced by their present responsibilities they will become more invisible to the very people who want help in gaining access to the organisation of the health service. I know, particularly in large cities, that the community health council often tends to be slightly anonymous. It is not so apparent as the council located in the main high street of smaller towns and villages. It is very important that the CHC should remain close to the local population it seeks to serve. I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept the amendment which I support.
Baroness Cumberlege: The Government recognise that community health councils must be accessible to their local community and be able adequately to represent that community. There is nothing in this Bill to reduce the number of CHCs. It is a matter for discussion between the CHCs and their establishing body how many CHCs there are in an area.
The establishing body for England at the moment is the regional health authority. From the 1st April 1996 it will be the Secretary of State, acting through the regional offices of the NHS executive. In considering how many CHCs there should be we shall be seeking to ensure that the CHC can represent the community within its boundary.
We shall take account of factors such as the geographical size of the area and the diversity of the population. Guidance issued by the NHS executive in January 1994 made that clear. The provisions in Schedule 1 make clear that a CHC can he established to cover the whole area of the health authority or any part of it. The establishing authority, in consultation with health authorities and the CHC themselves, will review CHC boundaries to see whether the CHC can be more effective if its boundaries are changed. That may mean reducing or even increasing the number of CHCs. In some places it will mean changing the areas of some CHCs so that they have only to relate to a single health authority or to part of a single authority. With those words I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured and that she will choose to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may briefly intervene again. I may have rather foolishly not followed exactly what the noble Baroness said. Did she say that the CHC paid official will now be employed by the regional office of the Department of Health? Is that the way it will work?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, the contract will be held at health authority level. The terms and conditions and the monitoring of it will be dealt with at the regional office. We believe it inappropriate that CHC secretaries should become civil servants.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very reassured.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am not very much clearer in my mind having listened to what she said. It seems that in some cases there will be community health

1609
councils for one health authority area even if it is enlarged while in other areas there may be two. However, there are no clear guidelines on what should happen.
As the community health councils have worked well under the district health authorities, with each community health council serving one district health authority, I wanted an assurance that, if they are to be amalgamated, there will be two community health councils and that nobody else could interfere with that decision—whether the Secretary of State or the regional outposts of the Department of Health.
1610
I shall have to return to this issue, having read carefully what the Minister told us. I could not quite follow the basis of the decision-making as to how many community health councils there will be. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.

  Recorders and Assistant Recorders: Sittings
  Recorders and Assistant Recorders: Sittings
  Disregard on Income Support: Up-rated Worth
  Disregard on Income Support: Up-rated Worth
  Road Pricing in London: Study
  Road Pricing in London: Study
  NHS Nurses: Suicide Rate
  NHS Nurses: Suicide Rate
  Council Housing: Local Authority Sales
  Council Housing: Local Authority Sales