Sitting of 24 January 1996

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

Women in Prison
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
9.34 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Last week, at the very moment that the Home Secretary was announcing small changes to what many of us have described as the inhumane practice of shackling pregnant women prisoners while they are in labour, a woman prisoner suffering from breast cancer was lying in the Middlesex hospital manacled to two prison officers—one of whom was male—right up to the point when her radiotherapy treatment was due to commence.
One does not need much imagination to think of the scene—the woman in her white hospital gown waiting with other NHS patients for a sensitive and personal treatment while being shackled to a man. That is the reality, I suggest, of the policy that the Government now support.
Frances Crook, director of the Howard League, said when giving me information for the debate—information that I have checked out with the Prison Service and the hospital:
"The Home Secretary had given the clear impression that the shackling of women attending hospital would be discouraged."
She added that all hon. Members should question the Minister closely as to exactly who should and who should not be shackled.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Home Secretary has given way a little in relation to women who are in hospital to give birth, but does my hon. Friend agree that this half loaf—or one slice of bread—is totally inadequate? The Home Secretary has not addressed the issue of women who are breast-feeding, and has not addressed the issue of antenatal care. During pregnancy, all women are particularly vulnerable to stress and anxiety, and there is proof that that has an effect both on the foetus and on the baby for many years after birth. Does my hon. Friend agree that shackling should be discontinued during pregnancy?
Mrs. Mahon: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, who puts her case very well. I have some questions in a similar vein from the Maternity Alliance that I shall put to the Minister later in the debate. As joint chairman of the all-party breast cancer group, I have taken a considerable interest in women and how they feel. I have talked to many women who suffer from breast cancer, and I have listened as they described their terror at being
266
told that they were suffering from the disease. I believe that shackling a woman who is awaiting radiotherapy is tantamount to the worst kind of cruelty, and there is no place for such treatment in a civilised society.
If such treatment is cruel, other cases of shackling that have been drawn to my attention border on the farcical or the downright dangerous. A report in the Daily Mirror gave details of patients who were chained to officers when attending hospital for treatment for pneumonia, cancer and other serious illnesses. But would you believe, Madam Speaker, that one case which was reported—and which I have pursued—was of a woman suffering from dysentery being shackled? As everybody knows, it is an infectious, notifiable disease. Some poor unsuspecting prison officer had to be shackled to someone suffering from it, so possible cross-infection is obviously considered a price worth paying to support the Government's "prison works" policy.
If the officer went down with dysentery, surely that would not be a price worth paying. The practice is mediaeval. When the woman was not chained to the prison officer, she was chained to the bed. We all know that people suffering from dysentery need to use the toilet frequently, so that woman would have been most uncomfortable hopping in and out of bed with chains on.
Except in the most exceptionally high-risk cases, the practice of manacling smacks more of the Home Secretary's Soviet style and gulag mentality towards the penal system rather than the policy of a Home Secretary in a modern democracy as it approaches the millennium. It is high time to end a shameful and degrading practice. High-risk women prisoners and other women who have simply been imprisoned because of a minor misdemeanour should not be treated in the same way.
The number of women imprisoned is not high. According to the latest figures that I received on 18 January, the current prison population stands at 51,584, of whom 2,024 are women. That figure peaked in December, when the highest female prison population, 2,150, was recorded. The latest published Home Office statistics about prison populations relate to 1993, so when we speak about the reasons for women's imprisonment and the percentage of women in gaol, we are working on old statistics.
In 1993, 37 per cent. of those imprisoned were fine defaulters, and 22 per cent. were in for theft and handling stolen goods. Those statistics also reveal that women are sent to prison mainly for minor offences. In June 1993, 39 per cent. of women in prison had no previous convictions. That seems to be the trend.
Women seem to get sentenced more often for first offences than men. During that year, just 26 per cent. of women who were held in prison on remand subsequently received prison sentences. The 74 per cent. released back into the community were either found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. I wonder whether any of those women were manacled or treated in an inhumane way.
Those statistics give the lie to the recent statement by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—I am sorry he is not present—in a recent intervention on the Home Secretary:
"every one of those women is either a convicted criminal or has been remanded in custody by a court which considers them to be dangerous or likely to abscond".—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 898.]

267
The figures show that that is nonsense. I do not believe that the 37 per cent. of women prisoners who are fine defaulters are dangerous, liable to abscond, or a threat to anyone. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognise that, and not make such a fatuous statement.
Fourteen prison establishments hold women, of which eight are closed prisons. It is current policy for girls as young as 15 to be held in prisons with adult women. The average cost of keeping a woman in prison is £541 a week—again according to the 1993 statistics. That figure does not include the cost of prison headquarters, so the total cost is higher.
Mr. Paul Boateng: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Conservative Back Bencher to seek advice from civil servants in the course of a debate? Will that facility be available to all hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: It is most unusual for a Back-Bench Member to seek information from civil servants unless, of course, that Member has been asked by a Minister to do so. That is not the case now, and therefore that Back Bencher should not be seeking information from Government civil servants. I had not noticed, and I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for bringing it to my attention.
Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for my action. I was checking the detail of an address with the civil servants, but I accept your reprimand.
Mrs. Mahon: A high percentage of women are in prison because they are fine defaulters or have not paid for a television licence. In 1993, 7.5 per cent., or 278 women, were imprisoned for the non-payment of television licence fees or fines related to that. I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who has tabled early-day motion 287 on the imprisonment of television licence fine defaulters. He should be commended on his campaign to argue that it is an absolute waste of time and shocking to imprison such people.
That early-day motion states:
"people prosecuted for TV licence evasion tend to be disproportionately poor, female, unemployed"
and single parents. It is impossible to quantify the harm and distress caused to a family when the mother, often the only parent, is taken away and incarcerated, perhaps for weeks, while the children are taken into care.
The Home Secretary has slickly informed the Tory party conference that prison works, but it does not work for the children of women imprisoned for fine defaulting, and whose only crime is to be poor. It does not work for the taxpayers, either; they might lose £86.50 on the television licence that goes to the Exchequer, but will fork out £541 a week for prison lodgings. That cost does not take into account the thousands of pounds extra that is spent on keeping children in local authority care.
The Home Secretary would be wise to start watching programmes such as "Coronation Street". West Yorkshire probation service has issued a news release noting:
"As Coronation Street's Trish is sent to prison after being caught without a television licence…many real life women are in prison for the same reason."
268
Elly Phillips, the debts and benefits adviser for West Yorkshire probation service, has drawn attention to the absolute outrage revealed in that programme:
"A woman who cannot afford to pay her television licence is no more likely to be able to pay a Court fine. If she is then sent to prison the licence fee and the fine are still unpaid"—
on top of that, it costs the taxpayer money—
"When we are talking about a mother the result is even worse: her children are often taken into care, like Trish's son Jamie, so they become the innocent victims of the system."
The West Yorkshire probation service also notes:
"The Prison Reform Trust has reported that no fewer than 38 per cent. of all women prosecuted for all offences in 1993 were charged with using a television set without a licence."
That is slightly higher than the figure quoted in the Home Office statistics. According to the Home Secretary, that practice shows that prison works.
Ms Margaret Hodge: The population of Holloway prison has doubled in the past five years, but its budget for last year was cut. The Secretary of State is obsessed with the idea that the only thing that matters is to keep people locked up and that security is the issue of prime importance.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it is inevitable that the regime for women incarcerated in places like Holloway is bound to be dreadful? That will not make prison work, because we do not just want to lock people up while they are serving their sentence: we want to ensure that, when those people are released, we are secure in the community because they will be active, rehabilitated citizens.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend puts it eloquently. I was coming to that. I want to challenge the notion that prison works, especially for those whose only crime is poverty and civil debt. I want a criminal justice system that is linked with anti-poverty social programmes based on good rehabilitation practice. I want prison really to work.
If someone does end up in prison, the hallmark of success is whether they reoffend. In fact, 40 per cent. of women prisoners are re-convicted within two years of release. If their problem is poverty, that poverty will not go away while they are in prison. The taxpayer's bill goes up, but poverty does not go away. Prison has not worked for the 40 per cent. of women who are re-convicted.
Before there are any hysterical outbursts to the effect that I worry only about the prisoner and not about the victim, I should say that I am not in favour of early release for people who have been violent, such as muggers. I would never again trust a child murderer. I would never plead for someone who had murdered children. I am in favour of a civilised system, because I recognise that people who go to prison remain human beings, whatever crime they may have committed.
Mrs. Wise: On the question of rehabilitation, which is so important, does my hon. Friend agree that the time during which a woman is pregnant and gives birth, and immediately after, is a time of renewal? There is the possibility of a fresh start—indeed, it is inevitable—in a new life. If women are degraded and humiliated at that time, it can only harden them and make them less likely to use that opportunity—and impossible for the Prison Service to use it—for rehabilitation, which could be effective at such an important time in a woman's life.
Mrs. Mahon: Absolutely. I hope that the Minister took note of that.
I am told by prison reformers, the Prison Officers Association, the probation service and others who take an interest in prisons that conditions in women's prisons are not radically different from or better than those in most men's prisons. Women have little privacy, food is not good, and they have few chances to make decisions about their lives. Many people say that rehabilitation programmes are almost non-existent. The POA in particular is frustrated about prison officers being expected to act only as gaolers rather than doing useful rehabilitation work.
The present and previous chief inspectors of prisons have both made many relevant observations. When he visited Drake Hall in 1994, the previous chief inspector stated:
"The residential units were in a state of dilapidation."
Especially unsatisfactory were the small, dingy recreation areas, which were expected to accommodate about 80 inmates but could seat less than half that number. He went on to describe conditions in the communal wash areas, where there were no plugs in the sinks and most of the rooms were in a bad decorative state. People at the bottom of the pile, who have been subjected to poverty, especially first offenders and women in prison for civil offences, must have their feelings of rejection and hopelessness confirmed when incarcerated in such conditions.
In December 1995, the new chief inspector, Sir David Ramsbotham, took the unprecedented step of withdrawing his inspection team from Holloway. Other hon. Members will deal with that, and I mention it only briefly. According to The Times of 19 December, his team walked out of the prison because of
"over-zealous security, prisoners being locked in their cells 23 hours a day"—
the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—
"poor health care, bullying, low staff morale, inadequate education and activities, and dirty conditions".
Nearer to home, two women from my constituency were sent to New Hall prison near Wakefield last year for non-payment of television licence fees. I got these statistics from the Library yesterday. Four years ago, that prison was condemned by prison inspectors, who made a total of 102 recommendations. I congratulate the prison on the many improvements that have been made since. I must put that on record, because, in the latest unannounced inspection, the Home Office report found
"notable improvements in facilities and an improved regime".
However, there were still 20 further serious recommendations for New Hall. Although the health care system had improved, the full-time medical officer was male, which is especially distressing for women from ethnic minorities, but seems to be the norm in women's prisons. Health facilities were not good. Prisoners did not get the same facilities that the rest of us get on the NHS. The Minister should address that.
The New Hall report also pointed out that bullying was a serious problem. Girls as young as 15 are held in women's prisons. The report stressed that an increase in bullying coincided with the increased use of class A drugs by prisoners, but there was no recognised anti-bullying
270
strategy. That is desperately needed, and is recommended by the report. There was a high level of self-mutilation among prisoners. While improvements have been made, many more still need to be made.
What I found especially shocking about the report was that 86 of the prisoners in New Hall had been victims of sexual abuse. The probation service's figures are even higher. The majority of women prisoners have constantly been found to be victims of sexual abuse. In spite of that, they still had male medical officers. That is something that could be addressed. There should be counselling for women in that situation. Perhaps there should also be an in-depth study into why they end up in prison.
Women are strip-searched by female officers before going to court, and there are searches for drug testing. Random drug testing procedures involve strict searching, which is done in front of female officers. That has led to something even more disturbing, which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will mention. The probation service says that the system of searching and testing for drugs is making heroin more unpopular than cannabis. Drug taking is out of control in most of our prisons.
Mr. George Howarth: I think that my hon. Friend means more popular.
Mrs. Mahon: It is because heroin does not remain in the system for as long as cannabis, and is unlikely to be picked up by urine samples. This degrading process does not seem to have solved the problem that it was meant to address. We should examine that.
The Minister must seriously address the health care problems in prisons. Do we want prisons to stop people reoffending when they get out? That would mean that something must be done about the penal and criminal justice systems. The Home Office should be working on both. We must think of the poor old taxpayer, who has to pay out all that money because someone has not paid for a TV licence. It is, first, an obscenity that someone should be sent to prison for that offence, but the Minister must also consider the fact that our money is being wasted to satisfy some Tory prejudices.
I shall give the last word to Beatrix Campbell, who wrote a good article in The Guardian in December. She wrote of the typical offences for which women go to prison. The article is so good that it is worth repeating what she said. She stated that typical offences committed by women involved sex and shopping. The practice of women selling sex is as old as women's desperation. We all know that women end up in prison not for selling sex, but for where they do so and whether they are caught in the system.
Beatrix Campbell states:
"The organised shoplifter is no threat to public tranquillity, unlike the boy burglar whose business is as much about power as it is about poverty. Breaking and entering his neighbours' homes is a personal kind of piracy and the reward is both material and emotional—the pleasure of conquest. The 'shoppie' targets not her neighbours or private property but big business".
Beatrix Campbell suggests that, when women find themselves in such circumstances and are first offenders, the criminal justice system should not be tougher on women, but should try to find alternatives to custody, and should consider the poverty connection—linking crime and the penal system, and the woman's social conditions.

271
We should try to do something to stop women getting into such circumstances, and we should stop locking up women simply because they do not have enough money on which to live.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There about 35 minutes left for Back-Bench speeches before the Front-Bench teams wind up the debate. Five hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye, and, if everyone co-operates, I think that all those hon. Members may be successful.
10.1 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall attempt to be brief.
I am sure that, when the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) applied for the debate, she had in mind principally the repugnant case of shackling women while they give birth. All of us would agree that not only women, but men, had a very emotional reaction to that repugnant spectacle, and none of us could cope with the concept. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to bring that practice to an end.
The hon. Lady detailed at length the number of women who go to prison, and many of the offences for which they do so. She said that there are only just over 2,000 women in prison; it is also worth while saying that 59 per cent. of women are cautioned for indictable offences, compared with 36 per cent. of males. Clearly, attempts are made to keep women out of prison where possible.
In addition, the average sentence for women is about half that of men, so the courts clearly recognise that, for most offences, women should be sentenced to prison for only a brief period. It has become fairly clear over many years that, by and large, courts do not like to send women to prison, and do so only when that is the only recourse left to them due to the nature of the offence or because the women themselves—
Mr. Boateng: Does not the hon. Lady realise that, on the Home Office's own figures, women are more likely than men to be sent to prison—and for longer—for minor offences? Does that not have implications, not only for her argument, but for sentencing policy generally? Should we not be doing something about it?
Mrs. Lait: Having sat in magistrates courts when women have come before them, and having talked to many magistrates about the lengths to which they go to try to avoid sending women to prison, I know that that is the key to the argument. When a court concludes that the only solution is to send a woman to prison, it is for very good and clear reasons, and I support the court's right to do so.
The hon. Lady spoke of the attempts made in prison to rehabilitate women. On the rare occasions on which I have visited women's prisons, I have been impressed by the way in which prison officers work with the prisoners to give them the life skills that so many of them lack. Those
272
skills include how to manage budgets and how to look after children. Many of the women who unfortunately find themselves in prison are not as competent at managing their affairs as many of us would wish.
It is also reasonable to consider the history of escapes from hospitals, which is what prompted the debate. The figures are interesting: in 1991–92, there were 14 escapes by women prisoners; in 1992–93, there were 13 escapes; in 1993–94, there were nine escapes; in 1994–95, there were six escapes; and in 1995–96, there were just two. Escapes from hospitals over those same years are four, eight and five. In 1994–95, there were no escapes, and in 1995–96 there were none.
One of the principal policies of the prison service, whether the Home Office prison service or the agency, should be to prevent escapes—the prison service has clearly succeeded in doing so.
Ms Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Lady think that the brutality—which has been described and at which she expressed horror at the beginning of her speech—of chaining women prisoners is worth the saving in terms of escape figures, which are relatively minor, anyway? Does she think that the brutality and anger are worth that result?
Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady will realise that the Home Secretary has said that women in labour will no longer be chained. Seven prisoners who were either pregnant or who had just given birth have escaped from hospital. It was not our decision or a Home Office decision to chain women: it was an operational decision, and the Home Secretary has now instructed that it should not happen again. Let us sincerely hope that we do not witness the spectacle of women who are pregnant or just about to give birth escaping from hospital. The Prison Service should look for the best way to meet that target.
I have mentioned the difference between operational decisions and Home Office decisions. On the subject of women in hospital, we all know that, while those in the Prison Service are hard-working and have tremendous commitment, they are not known for their imagination. It was probably the lack of imagination that led to the policy of chaining women. Now that that policy has been abandoned, I hope that more sensible and imaginative ways will be found to ensure that women do not escape.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend accept that it has never been Home Office policy to shackle women in labour?
Mrs. Lait: It has never been Home Office policy, but an operational decision was made by the next steps agency to restrain prisoners outside prison from April 1995—I think that that is why many people have accused the Prison Service of lacking imagination, and I suggest that the problem arose there.
That problem has been remedied by an instruction from the Home Secretary, and, I hope, some imagination will now be applied to the issue of restraining prisoners effectively when they are outside prison, so that, while there are no more escapes, we are not faced with the repugnant spectacle of women in labour being chained to their beds. That is the key to ensuring that the Prison Service can make progress and achieve its aims and the targets that it has been set.

273
The more often there are crises, the more often Ministers intervene in the agency's work. As a result, the agency finds it more difficult to follow the policy that we all wish it to follow—that of working effectively and efficiently, allowing it to deliver an effective service to prisoners, ensuring that the public are not affected by prison escapes, and providing an element of rehabilitation and training during a prison sentence.
10.10 am
Mr. Chris Davies: The debate must be placed in the context of the Government's recent problems concerning the care of pregnant women in prisons, which we all have in mind. What an embarrassment that matter has been for the Government. How costly it has proved. It was obviously a contributory factor in the decision of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) to cross the Floor of the House, giving the very strong impression of a Conservative party that was split and falling apart. That latter impression has not been corrected by the performance of Ministers at the Dispatch Box in recent weeks.
Having for months brazenly bluffed their way through with categoric denials of the allegations made by Opposition Members, Ministers have been exposed and humbled. I do not blame them for not knowing from personal experience what was going on. They were fed inaccurate information by the people on whom they relied. I assume that someone in the Prison Service continues to smart from the fury of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), when she was forced to carry the can for their mistakes.
The question now is whether we can be sure that the official information that will no doubt be the basis for the Minister's response today is as good, as accurate and as reliable as it should be.
When the issue of pregnant women and new mothers was at its height, I was struck by the number of newspaper commentators who wrote, "What do those women expect? They did not go to prison for a rest cure." Those callous words from poisonous pens were revealed more starkly because, at that very time, the Government were conceding their errors. I should add, however, that those poisonous pens were not all directed at those who were in prison. Some of them were, and have been, directed at the Minister.
On Monday night, my wife telephoned me. She said, "May I read you a letter? I am incensed by an article that I read in the Manchester Evening News, attacking the Minister, and I hope that it will not cause you any political problems if I write in, defending her."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Good.
Mr. Davies: I said, "All right. Read me the letter." The attack that was made on the Minister was indeed couched in the most personal terms, ignoring the political arguments entirely—an argument that would not have been presented against a male Minster. I said, "Fine; send it in."
When I spoke to my wife yesterday, she said, "I feel much better. I have sent it off. Sometimes I write these letters and never send them." I said, "That's fine. Are you
274
going to start defending me against some of the attacks made on me in the papers?" She said, "No; you are attacked too often—day in, day out. I can't afford the pen and the paper to defend you."
We can be sure that some of those self-righteous authors will not retract their views, despite the evidence presented today by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
There are more women in prison than ever before—about 1,800—yet, when one considers the reasons that they are there, and especially the enormous proportion, about 47 per cent., who are in prison for defaulting on fines, it is impossible not to question whether there are not more effective ways of ensuring that justice is done and the community served.
Neither I nor the Liberal Democratic party take a soft view toward real criminals. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Halifax. Hon. Members will understand that, as the representative of Saddleworth, I have no problem with the idea that a woman sentenced to a life sentence for a crime that at other times would have deserved a capital punishment should indeed serve a sentence for life.
However, the obscenity must be ended of many women—many of whom are inadequate or impoverished, driven to extremes, but who have struggled to keep families together, making do on limited resources with no help from a partner, if any worthwhile partner exists—ending up in prison for fine default or for being unable to pay for a television licence.
A sentence in such cases may be only seven days, and to a judge that may seem nothing more than a slap on the wrist, but seven days to the person involved—especially if they have never been in prison—means humiliation and despair beyond belief. It means kids taken into local authority care, and costs to all members of the local community.
The Government may try to wash their hands of that by saying, "It is up to the courts to decide on the sentence," but it is up to the Government to ensure that the courts have a proper range of alternative, non-custodial, options on which they can call. The fact that Britain now has the fastest increasing—and, I believe, the largest—prison population in Europe, clearly demonstrates that it is failing in providing those non-custodial options.
For once, surely money cannot be used as a reason—not when it costs about £25,000 a year, for heaven's sake, to keep a woman in prison. For that money, each individual person sentenced instead to a non-custodial alternative might have a personal supervisor, probably with a chauffeur-driven car, to take them to their job each morning.
Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vast majority of people who are ordered by the courts to pay fines pay those fines, that people who default and end up going to prison are volunteers, and that, were the possibility of sending such people to prison to be withdrawn, it would send entirely the wrong signal to people who are fined, and encourage them not to pay their fines?
Mr. Davies: I believe that the courts should sentence people when they are obviously in breach of the law, but we are debating what type of sentence it should be. I am

275
suggesting to the House that non-custodial sentences offer sensible, practical options—and practical options for the courts—which should be explored more often than they are. The very fact that the number of women in prison is increasing so sharply shows that non-custodial options are not being explored properly.
Imprisonment is the right option if society needs protection from an individual. It is the right answer if the crime committed against another human being deserves the most serious punishment. It satisfies society's justifiable desire for retribution in some cases, but no one should pretend for a minute that it helps society.
Prison is a breeding ground for crime. It is an admission of society's failure. It solves nothing. People who have committed crime through poverty, and are imprisoned, return to poverty. Those who have committed crime because of alcohol or drug dependence return to that dependence. If crime in this country is to be reduced effectively, it is time we explored more realistic, practical, sensible ways of ensuring that our means of imposing that justifiable punishment, meeting the court's requirements and reprimanding the people involved does not result in the problem and its consequences for society becoming worse than they are already.
10.18 am
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In the past few months, much more heat than light has been expended on the subject of the treatment of women in prisons. Not least, it has caused the hysterical actions on the part of two of my colleagues, who have changed heart over that issue, yet have not even bothered to turn up for this morning's debate. The hysteria appears to have died down almost as quickly as it flared up.
We all have 20:20 vision with the benefit of hindsight. The debate—to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has responded in a sensible and a responsible manner—has focused entirely on the treatment of women who are allowed out of prison in order to use the public health service. I am sure that most hon. Members would have campaigned at some time to give women prisoners the right to receive the best medical treatment available. However, we must remember that such women are serving custodial sentences, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) pointed out, many are persistent offenders.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is being a little sentimental when she suggests that there should be different rules for women. Women should not be judged by lower standards than men. It should not be assumed that, because they are women, we expect less of them in terms of obedience to the law. If women offend persistently—it has been pointed out that women are sent to prison not for non-payment of licence fees, but for refusing to obey a court order—they must be answerable to the law like everyone else in the community. Otherwise, what is to stop any woman saying, "I don't want to pay for my television licence, and I know that I can't be imprisoned for it, because I am a mother"?
I have experience in helping female constituents and their families with their problems. They receive an enormous amount of assistance from social services, which often includes financial help to settle immediate monetary problems.
Mrs. Mahon: I do not think that women should be treated differently from men—although perhaps women have different problems. Does the hon. Lady believe that it is a good use of taxpayers' money to incarcerate a woman in prison for a week or a fortnight and to take her children into care for default of payment of a television licence fine?
Mrs. Gorman: Like the hon. Lady, I deplore the fact that that occurs. However, my annoyance is rooted in the fact that women—who generally have more common sense than men—persist in committing the crimes that put them in that situation. I taught girls in London secondary schools for 10 years, and I know that it is silly to pretend that women cannot behave as badly as men. If they persistently refuse to obey the laws of the land, they must be dealt with accordingly. I stress that point to Labour Members who have sought to make enormous political capital from the issue.
As a Member of Parliament, I have been very interested in the plight of women who are charged with murder and who are unable to plead provocation as a defence—we do not need to go into the details of how provocation occurs. A few years ago, I visited Bullwood Hall prison at my request—unfortunately, my experience is not up to date—where I was permitted to interview 13 women who had been imprisoned for first degree murder. They included Sarah Thornton and Kiranjit Ahluwalia—whose name I can never pronounce, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) will assist me.
I made an extensive tour of the prison, and what I saw does not match the descriptions of the treatment of female prisoners. I saw a family room equipped with toys which is used by children—who are separated from their mothers in those circumstances—when visiting the prison. I saw a gymnasium in a very large hall, and I was assured that tutors visited the prison to assist women with exercises. I saw the kitchens and the food that the women were served for lunch.
I also talked freely with the prisoners. At one point, I was alone with 13 prisoners, who expressed their grievances to me. I visited Miss Thornton, who was at that time in the prison hospital, in a very clean and neat room to herself. She sat curled up in the middle of a bed that was made up with clean linen. There was no attempt to restrain her, or to prevent me from speaking to her.
One can speak only about what one has seen. Of course, I was intimidated by the banging doors, the chains and the locks and keys, but the conditions in that prison were not offensive.
Ms Diane Abbott: I worked in the Home Office formulating prison policy in relation to women and young offenders. I assure the hon. Lady that most women prisoners are held in Holloway, not in Bullwood Hall. Is she aware that, when the new chief inspector of prisons visited Holloway, he walked out halfway through the day because he was so disgusted by the conditions there?
Mrs. Gorman: I am, of course, aware of those reports, and, like everyone else, I am concerned about them, and await more details. I find it surprising that an institution in which many women are incarcerated is allowed to get into a dilapidated state. In similar circumstances, I would want to clean up the conditions in which I was living.

277
The cells that I saw—admittedly it was a small prison, but the women had been convicted of very serious crimes—were nothing like what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) describes. Perhaps female prisoners should be given the opportunity to contribute to the general maintenance of the prison, including the cooking and cleaning. I think that that would be excellent therapy.
That brings me to the amount of time, energy and taxpayers' money that the Government spend on rehabilitating prisoners. The Government have spent a phenomenal amount of money in an attempt to improve conditions for prisoners—who, I repeat, are incarcerated because they have committed offences against society, and society has demanded that they receive a custodial sentence. Government spending on prisons has doubled since 1979; more recently, it has increased from £1.35 billion in 1995–96 to £1.4 billion in 1996–97. The Government are doing their best to improve conditions within the Prison Service, not just for those who are incarcerated but for those who work in our prisons.
Even more important is the amount of time that is being devoted to ensuring that male and female prisoners learn skills that will prove useful upon their release from prison. I hope that that will include courses in simple accounting, which may help some women to balance their budgets.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: But they are locked up many hours a day.
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman remarks that female prisoners are locked in their cells for long periods. However, 38 per cent. of all prisoners have their cells unlocked for more than 12 hours a day during the week. That compares with much longer periods spent in their cells 10 years ago. The prison regime is becoming much more humane, and is providing rehabilitation opportunities for male and female prisoners. Prisoners are able to exercise on outdoor pitches, and the prison library provides education opportunities.
Mr. Corbyn: While we agree that prisoners should have education opportunities, there is a serious problem in that regard in Holloway prison. Due to a shortage of prison officers, many women spend much time—sometimes up to 23 hours—in their cells every day. That is very wrong. There have also been enormous cuts in the budget of the education department at Holloway prison. Female prisoners' opportunities for education and self-improvement in prison have been wiped out by staff and spending cuts. In her response, perhaps the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to improve the education facilities at Holloway prison.
Mrs. Gorman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will do that.
Some 58 prisons run re-employment focusing courses and job clubs which prepare prisoners for a return to the work force, and 113 prisons provide advice on housing and employment issues. I am sure that such advice will prove especially helpful to women, whose problems are rooted in their inability to manage their budgets and pay the rent. It is very upsetting if women are constantly forced out of their homes and must seek new accommodation.
278
Sentence planning is in place for all prisoners serving 12 months or more, so, while they are in prison, a prison officer can counsel prisoners to plan for the time that they are discharged. The Government's record of improving conditions in prisons, making them more humane and enhancing the chances of prisoners ending their sentences with a better attitude and of being more organised undoubtedly represents an advance on the conditions that once prevailed—and long may they go on improving.
There will inevitably be times when we can find cause for criticism. If we lived in a perfect world, we would not need to be here in the first place.
10.30 am
Ms Glenda Jackson: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to hon. Members on both sides of the House, for the fact that, due to a previous commitment, regretfully I will not be present for the wind-up.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on securing this Adjournment debate on an issue of paramount importance.
Conservative Members have argued that women who fall foul of the law should not be treated any less leniently. No Opposition Members would argue against that—if women offend, they must be punished. However, I strongly argue that, as most women prisoners, who number more than 1,000 according to Home Office figures, are imprisoned for minor offences that do not involve harming an individual—such as defaulting on fines—they should not be incarcerated. It is entirely possible for an alternative form of punishment to be applied to women who are in the main mothers, and preponderantly single mothers. We are punishing not only them but their innocent children.
If the Government listen only to the argument that society is protecting the taxpayer by imprisoning such women, I remind Conservative Members that it costs more than £451 a week to keep a woman in prison, and that a child taken into care costs the taxpayer £45,000 a year.
Ms Jean Corston: When I visited Holloway prison nearly two years ago, women were faced with a terrible and stark choice once their babies reached the age of nine months. If a woman wanted to stay in Holloway, because, for example, she had other children in London, the baby was taken into care. If she wanted to keep the baby with her, she had to go to a prison in the north of England, thereby facing separation from her other children. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an appalling way to treat mothers?
Ms Jackson: I agree absolutely. That is an appalling way to treat mothers and a ghastly lesson for their children to learn—that society has no care or feeling for them. The Howard League, for whose information I am most grateful, states that estimates lead it to believe that more than 8,587 children are left without a parent because their mothers are serving prison sentences for, in the main, minor offences. The league deems the true figure to be infinitely higher, as many women sent to prison for minor offences do not reveal that they have children, because they are afraid that they will be taken into care.
The issue of how society punishes mothers who have offended against the law must be reviewed. Currently, society is punishing not only mothers but their essentially innocent children.
10.33 am
Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on initiating this debate, with the typical generosity of spirit that we associate with her, and in such a thoughtful way.
We should try to put the issue in the wider context of what has been happening and is happening in the Prison Service. The service has a contracting budget. Governors are expected to lower the unit cost per prisoner over the next two or three years, but there is a rising prison population. It currently numbers 52,000, but that figure varies one way or the other by 500 prisoners each month. Most experts agree that the figure will probably rise to between 56,000 and 57,000 by the end of this year.
That situation must be underwritten by the co-operation of the Prison Service, yet the morale of the people who work in it has never been lower in living memory. They have been confronted with privatisation and market testing, and they feel that the contribution they could make is constantly undermined by the Government, and by Home Office Ministers in particular. Even governors who occasionally get into difficulty, in some cases through no fault of their own, are scapegoated by Ministers.
Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Howarth: Well, in that context, the co-operation that the Government need to implement any reasonable prison policy is not there, which cannot be ignored.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) must be the only hon. Member who maintains that one can readily define a split between policy, which is the prerogative of Ministers, and operations, which are allegedly the sole province of the Prison Service. I will, for the hon. Lady's further edification, quote directly from Hansard the Home Secretary's statement last Thursday:
"We are confident that the revised policy provides the correct balance without reducing security to unacceptable levels."—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 893.]
We have it from the mouth of the Home Secretary himself that handcuffing and chaining women during labour was a matter of policy. He conceded that in his statement.
Most sensible Members in all parts of the House accept that that practice was unnecessary and certainly barbaric, but I wish to distance myself from some of the more personal attacks made on the Minister of State.
Mr. Boateng: Hear, hear.
Mr. Howarth: However, the Minister cannot and must not maintain that she did not know about the practice. The chairwoman of Whittington hospital trust had written to the Prison Service about the practice. I mentioned the matter when I had a private meeting with the Minister and the Director General of the Prison Service, and voiced my concerns in early December.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when we visited Holloway prison just before his meeting with the Minister, we met some of the women who had been handcuffed in Whittington hospital? It was clear to us both that Whittington had complained about the handcuffing of women entering the hospital for treatment,
280
often for antenatal care, and that the issue had been raised with the board of governors and the prison governor. The concerns were well known by a range of people. I find it surprising that the only individuals who did not know of them were at the Home Office. I find that scarcely believable.
Mr. Howarth: I confirm my hon. Friend's observations. He has saved me having to make those points myself. When we visited the prison, I was concerned about the policy and the wider difficulties. I am not at all surprised that the chief inspector's staff walked out of Holloway prison during their visit. That is the sorry pass that we have come to.
On 30 November 1995, 2,072 women were held in prisons, as has been mentioned. Not all had been convicted—about 400 were on remand. The women's prison population has been growing, and we must be honest and admit that the offences for which women are held on remand or convicted are generally in a different class of criminal than those typically associated with men. The figures show that 37.1 per cent. of women are in prison for non-payment of fines, and only 7.6 per cent. are there for violence-related crimes.
Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I will not give way, because I have only a short time, and the Minister will have only a short time. The hon. Gentleman has intervened often enough.
The pattern of crimes committed by women is wholly different from that associated with men. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), in a typically eccentric contribution—
Ms Abbott: She is not eccentric.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is characteristically generous.
There is a difference between women in prison and men in prison, and that has been recognised since Victorian times. I do not know which history of women in prison the hon. Member for Billericay has read, but I am sure that she is a fan of the utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham. Even he accepted that there is a difference between women in prison and men in prison, and that the arrangements for them needed to reflect that.
I would like to say much more, but time forbids. It is necessary sometimes to pause in the operation of public policy, and if the great furore that has taken place over the past few weeks produces anything good, it should be a reassessment of what we want to achieve by putting women in prison.
I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the Prison Service has three aims. The first is to punish, which is a legitimate step to take on behalf of society. The second is to protect society by removing some people from general circulation to prevent them from creating more mayhem in the community. The third must be—I know that the Minister accepts it, because she has said so before—rehabilitation. Without rehabilitation, the whole process is a waste of time.
We must question whether the Prison Service is achieving those aims. It is not doing so in Holloway or in Styal, which has a high level of drug abuse among its

281
women. Perhaps it is time to pause and ask what we are achieving for women in the prison system. Are those punishments for non-payment of fines the most appropriate ones?
Dr. Robert Spink: What would the hon. Gentleman do?
Mr. Howarth: I shall deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman will hold himself in patience.
Are there alternative ways of punishing and rehabilitating women that might be more appropriate and more effective? I wish to make an offer to the Minister. Will she set up an inquiry, not necessarily a high-profile one, to consider what alternatives may be available to punish women for non-payment of fines?
If the Minister was serious about that, and appointed the right people, who were prepared to consider the problem dispassionately and thoughtfully, we would be willing to co-operate—as, I am sure, would other parties in the House. If we could arrive at a formula for punishment that was acceptable to the House, was recognised as sensible by the general public, and, most importantly, was a more effective way to deal with the problem, we would all gain. Public policy, the Minister and the Opposition would all gain, and we would deal with the problem more intelligently.
If we could stop slinging abuse across the Dispatch Box—something I would never do to the Minister—and pause to give some thought to how we are dealing with the problems, we would reap the benefits. I make that offer to the Minister seriously, and I hope that she will take it up. I also hope that, after this debate, we shall start to deal with the problem more effectively and sensibly, instead of trading slogans all the time.
10.46 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I wish to start my reply to this debate by paying a tribute to the Prison Service. It has come in for much unfair criticism for some time, and it is right to put on record what it has achieved.
Escapes are now down by 77 per cent. compared with the figure when the Prison Service became an agency. No prisoners are now held three to a cell, and have not been since March 1994, compared with 1,053 in April 1992. At the end of December 1995, 17 per cent. of the prison population were held two to a cell for one, compared with 21 per cent. in April 1992. More than 96 per cent. of prisoners now have 24-hour access to sanitation, compared with 70 per cent. in March 1992. All that has been achieved against a background of a prison population that has risen from 43,400 in April 1993 to 51,300 in mid-January 1996—an increase of 18 per cent.
The Prison Service has provided more than 5,000 new and refurbished cells since it became an agency. Prisoners now spend 7 per cent. more time in purposeful activity than in 1992–93. At the end of December 1995, 36 per cent. of prisoners were unlocked for more than 12 hours per weekday, compared with 24 per cent. at the end of March 1993. All that has been achieved, not just against the rise in prison population, but against a reduction in the cost of a prison place of 2.4 per cent. in real terms.
The combination of the fall in escapes and the rise in purposeful activity, unlocked time and access to decent sanitation points clearly to a lack of any conflict between
282
security and rehabilitation. It is often suggested that there is a natural conflict between the two, but, as the clear statement of purpose outside every prison demonstrates, we are committed to security.
Mr. Boateng: The Minister is arguing that there is no conflict between security and rehabilitation. Does she believe that Richard Tilt, the acting Director General of the Prison Service, was wrong when he said:
"The problem for the Prison Service is that we are trying to balance security with treating people humanely. They are often in conflict"?
Who is right, the Minister or Mr. Tilt?
Miss Widdecombe: There is no conflict between the two statements. It is clear that Mr. Tilt made that statement about a particular issue. He was explaining, as I myself have had to explain to the House, that sometimes there is a difficulty in balancing security against dignity. There is no conflict between the two purposes of the prison system—to hold people securely in custody and not let them escape, and to rehabilitate them and raise the chances of their being returned to society as law-abiding and useful citizens. The second purpose is also a major contribution to public protection, and there is no such conflict.
Now that I have said that rather fiercely to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), may I thank him for his sedentary intervention in support of his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr Howarth), when he condemned the attacks on me? I also wish to pay especial tribute to the wife of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). I hope that he will convey to her my genuine thanks for what she has done.
I have listened with great care to the points that have been raised this morning. I regret that, because of the time constraints, I will not have the opportunity to answer them all. I shall, however, try to deal with some of the points raised in the time available.
I turn first to the opening paragraphs of the speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, in which he said that I should not claim that I did not know what was going on. It is very important to put the record straight. I have never claimed, in the House or outside it, that I did not know what the policy was. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will remember that, when he came to see me, the acting Director General of the Prison Service gave him, in my presence, a full exposition of what the policy was. I have never claimed not to know it.
What I said was that I did not know that concern had been expressed by the Whittington hospital about Holloway practice. That statement was utterly truthful, according to the knowledge I had at the time. When I came into the knowledge that had not been available to me, I took the earliest possible opportunity to rectify the situation. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what I have said is a truthful statement?
Mr. George Howarth: I would never accuse the hon. Lady of deliberately misleading the House or anyone else, but can she confirm that, when we met on 10 December in her office with the acting Director General of the Prison Service, I raised with her the fact that I was aware that Whittington hospital trust had been in touch, possibly initially with the Department of Health but certainly also

283
with her office, to raise its concerns about the medical implications of what was going on? She was aware of that at the time. If I remember rightly, she said that she had had some dialogue with a ministerial colleague at the Department of Health about some of the issues that worried the Whittington hospital trust.
Miss Widdecombe: No, there is some confusion here. I had certainly had dialogue with my noble Friend Lady Cumberlege, but that was on the subject of health care throughout the Prison Service, not on this specific topic. That is where the confusion arises. I was assured, I queried the assurance, and I was reassured that there had not been any specific complaints about Holloway practice from the hospital to the prison. I do not think that there is any point in rehearsing the matter much further; I have stated the position as it was.
Ms Corston: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I am pressed for time. I should like to give way; indeed, I have already given way twice in the course of my summing up. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North did not give way at all.
Mr. George Howarth: Yes, I did.
Miss Widdecombe: There have been claims by the Opposition throughout this debate that women prisoners and women in general, on being sentenced and convicted, are treated more harshly than men. It is worth recording that, in 1994, the last year for which complete statistics are available, 16 per cent. of adult males were sentenced and cautioned for indictable offences, and were given either an immediate or a suspended prison sentence. The number of adult women similarly treated was 6 per cent.
The use of community sentences for female prisoners has also been mentioned. I regret that we have no published figures later than the year 1993. Nevertheless, those figures show that 6,885 female offenders received probation orders, 2,998 received community service orders, 803 received supervision orders, 696 received combination orders—making a total of 11,382 female offenders who were the subject of community sentences. In the same year, the number of female receptions in prisons for immediate custody was 1,929. I therefore do not think it true to say that there has been a disproportionate use of prison.
We have also heard much from the Opposition about the imprisonment of fine defaulters. When they arrive with us, it is always because the courts have exhausted all other remedies. There has to be a final deterrent, but it is still worth keeping the problem in proportion. On 31 October 1995, there were 414 fine defaulters in the entire prison estate, of whom only 19 were women. So, at any given time, less than 1 per cent. of the female population is in prison for non-payment of fines.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who initiated this interesting debate this morning—on which I neglected to congratulate her at the beginning—brought up the problem of a Holloway female prisoner with breast cancer. As she has raised the matter, I think it worth pointing out that that prisoner goes to the Middlesex
284
hospital four times a week. There are two officers on escort duty, and as far as operationally possible the prison makes every endeavour to ensure that both are female. I do not claim that they have always been female, but efforts are made to that end. Physical restraints are applied as a result of a risk assessment.
The Home Secretary made very clear our policy with regard to treatment in hospital. It is worth repeating some of it, although I do not intend to go into all of it, because it is important in respect of the essential point that the hon. Member for Halifax has raised: how we treat people who go to hospital for treatment for conditions other than pregnancy.
First, the Home Secretary made it clear that female prisoners who are admitted to hospital to give birth will not have handcuffs or other physical restraints applied to them from the time they arrive at the hospital until the time they leave. So, while a mother is attending to her child after birth, breast-feeding and so on, she will not be subject to restraints.
Secondly, female prisoners attending hospital for antenatal checks will not have restraints applied to them in the public waiting areas of hospitals. Restraints will not be applied at all during antenatal appointments. The hon. Member for Halifax expressed concern about the use of restraints when difficult treatment is being given, and I understand that point. Restraints may be applied if there is a particularly high risk of escape. Indeed, the hon. Lady herself conceded that restraints would be necessary in such cases.
For cases not associated with pregnancy, governors retain their discretion to decide what security measures are necessary. They must do a thorough risk assessment; following that, some female prisoners can go to hospital on temporary licence—in which case, they take themselves and bring themselves back. But in most other cases, physical restraints will be used.
If, following the risk assessment, the governor decides that restraints are unnecessary, they will not be used. In such cases, the prisoner will be accompanied and supervised by Prison Service staff. If there is a medical objection to the use of restraints at any time, the policy remains—it is not new—that restraints must be removed.
In the concluding minutes of this debate, I want to give a breakdown of the population of female offenders. There has been much talk today about the pettiness of the offences for which, allegedly, most female offenders are in prison. The precise statistics are as follows: violence against the person, 11 per cent.; sexual offences, 0.4 per cent.; burglary, 3.8 per cent.; robbery, 2.1 per cent.; theft and handling, 40 per cent.; fraud and forgery, 10.5 per cent.; drugs offences, 10.4 per cent.; other offences, 16 per cent.; offences not recorded, 5.8 per cent.
A specific point about the provision of education at Holloway was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Education in the prison is provided by Kingsway college, and additional money has been put in the education budget for Holloway this year. Far from suffering a cut, therefore, it has attracted additional money.
I should like to say a few words about our overall aims—
Mr. Corbyn: And staffing levels.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, even preceding the inspector's report, we recognised

285
that there were problems and had put in an extra £326,000, with a specific view to provide extra staff. Following the inspector's report, we drafted in some temporary staff to plug the gap before permanent staff were employed. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. If he has worries about this, he is welcome to raise them with me at any time, as I am aware that he has a genuine constituency concern.
In the final minute of the debate, I should like to say something about our overall aims. I am committed, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North admitted, to a rehabilitative regime in our prisons. I can think of nothing more—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time's up.

Single Currency
11 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to debate the consequences of abolishing the pound sterling. I appreciate that the debate is about the implications for the United Kingdom of a single European currency, but in plain language what we are really talking about are the consequences of getting rid of the pound. I hope that the sensibilities of right hon. and hon. Members will not be offended if I continue to express myself in those terms.
The debate takes place against the background of a round-table meeting in Brussels, hosted by the European Commission, to discuss the single currency. It will provide an opportunity for the 400 participants, who represent a wide range of interested parties from throughout the European Union, to discuss their expectations, concerns and ideas about the single currency.
There is absolutely no doubt where the European Commission President, Jacques Santer, stands on these matters. He is reported as having said to the European Parliament last Tuesday that a single currency was crucial in building a dynamic, strong and prosperous Europe. He went on to say that, with some member states devoting 20 per cent. of their budget to servicing their national debts, Europe would have to put its economic house in order anyway, regardless of whether it was introducing the single currency.
Indeed, as Europe's largest-circulation English language newspaper, the Europa Times, stated in March 1995:
"A single currency needs uniformly low inflation and stable exchange rates. But with low inflation and stable exchange rates who needs a single currency?"
That view was echoed in the business section of The Sunday Telegraph on 12 March 1995, which quoted the European Commission itself as saying:
"Since the empirical research has not found any robust relationship between exchange rate variability and trade it is not possible to estimate the increase in intra-EC trade that might derive from the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates."
I remind the House that both reports that I have just quoted came after 108 of my right hon. and hon. Friends signed early-day motion 581, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) on 8 February 1995, which called on the House to congratulate the Prime Minister on making it clear on 8 January 1995 that it is not in the United Kingdom's interest to join a single currency in 1997, and on his confirmation that there are no proposals for legislation necessary for the purpose or for the United Kingdom to accept any changes at the intergovernmental conference that will impact on the constitution of the United Kingdom, and further noted his rejections of support for the principle of a single currency by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and by Mr. Jacques Santer.
It is gratifying to see that the judgment of my colleagues was endorsed by the findings of the Henley Centre for Economic Forecasting, which reported in EP News, the newspaper of the European Parliament, in September 1995, that popular support in the United Kingdom for a single currency was only 31 per cent.—a figure which, broadly speaking, was endorsed by the

287
findings of the Commission's private polling announced this Monday, which showed support for the abolition of the pound at 36 per cent. Clearly, no popular mandate exists for abolishing the pound. Nor, indeed, has one ever been sought.
It is my intention not to burden the House further with reports and opinions of other people in other places, but rather to turn directly to the facts that should concern us as Members of Parliament, answerable and accountable, as we will shortly be reminded, to the electorate whom we represent. The first fact concerns unemployment. In October 1990, when this country joined the exchange rate mechanism, unemployment totalled 1.67 million. Less than two years later—23 months—when we unceremoniously left the ERM, unemployment had soared to 2.85 million. There will be right hon. and hon. Members who will say, "Well, that was just the way the cookie crumbled on that occasion." Let me remind the House that that was precisely what happened when we were on fixed exchange rates between 1925 and 1931. I shall give the House the figures.
In 1925, when we joined the gold standard, unemployment stood at 1.25 million. By 1931, the figure had risen to 2.9 million. That has been the cost to this country of fixed exchange rates. The cost to my constituents has been the jobs that they lost and the consequential loss to many of them of their homes, because they could not keep up their mortgage repayments. In some cases, they lost their businesses.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
Mr. Gill: I can see that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene. I must make it clear that I shall not be taking any interventions, because I want to allow maximum opportunity for other colleagues to make their contributions to the debate.
Are the figures that I just quoted on unemployment a price worth paying for what is no more and no less than an economic theory? Even if they are, who in the House will vote for a single currency? Certainly not all hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, and definitely not all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Walter Sweeney rose—
Mr. Gill: I am not giving way.
Indeed, there is increasing doubt that such a measure would command a majority in the House, even on a free vote. Why can we not simply conclude that a single currency is not in Britain's interest? Why must we keep up the pretence that, in spite of experience and all the political pain along the way, one day—miraculously—it will all come right? What the country needs is certainty. Decision makers in trade, industry and commerce need certainty, as do individuals, families, and—dare I say—politicians, particularly if they are seeking re-election, because in the final analysis there are no votes in equivocation, obfuscation and prevarication.
I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary responds to the debate, she will be able to provide the House with some sound and positive reasons
288
for abolishing the pound. Before she does that, I remind her of yet another fact. Between 1925 and 1931, while the country was on the gold standard, economic activity stagnated, just as it did between 1990 and 1992 during our membership of the ERM. On each occasion, the abandonment of fixed exchange rates resulted in dramatically reduced interest rates—from 6 per cent. in September 1931 to 2 per cent. a mere nine months later, and from 12 per cent. on black Wednesday to 6 per cent. only three months later.
In both instances, the start of economic recovery coincided with the abandonment of fixed exchange rates, the effect of which had been to choke off exports due to an unrealistic and uncompetitive exchange rate, and to choke off investment due to the necessity to keep interest rates high to sustain a totally arbitrary rate of exchange. That was a vicious circle, the inevitable consequences of which were, as I have described, unemployment, economic stagnation and all the consequential effects on Government expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement.
We should look at the situation today, now we are free of the straitjacket of fixed exchange rates. On 20 June 1995, The Daily Telegraph, in an article headed:
"Britain runs ahead of EU rivals"
said:
"Britain outpaced its main European rivals last year, achieving a growth rate of 3.8 per cent. against 2.9 per cent. for Germany, 2.7 per cent. for France and 2.2 per cent. for Italy."
The report then said:
"Norway, which decided to stay out of the EU, experienced a 5.1 per cent. rise in its gross domestic product last year."
Last week, The Daily Telegraph, in an article headlined,
"Britain shows the way on jobs"
said:
"On internationally agreed measures, the jobless rate in Britain, has fallen to 8.1 per cent. against a European average of 10.6 per cent. Unemployment has reached 11.4 per cent. in France and 9.9 per cent. in Germany."
If my analysis of the effect of fixed exchange rates on interest rates, unemployment and economic activity in Britain is wrong, I am sure that the House will be quick to correct me.
Another question arises from the proposition to abolish the pound. It is the associated costs of doing so—the costs to the Treasury, to banks and the financial sector, and to trade, industry and commerce, not to mention to the general public. Various bodies have made inspired guesses as to the overall cost, but one thing is for certain—Treasury Ministers, as evidenced by their written answer to me on 6 December 1995, do not know or will not tell. They will only say:
"there will be transitional costs to business and public authorities, associated with the changeover to the single currency. These potential costs would be one of the factors that would need to be taken into account, at the appropriate time, when the Government make their assessment of whether it is in the United Kingdom's interest to join a move to the third stage of economic and monetary union."—[Official Report, 6 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 261.]
In other words, there will be no cost-benefit analysis because, as is all too plain to see, the decision to abolish the pound will be made, not for economic but for political reasons.
Without a shadow of doubt, the abolition of the pound, and all other national currencies in Europe, and the creation of a single currency, is the keystone to the

289
completion of political union—the very apogee of the integrationists' dreams. The implication is that, by not ruling out the abolition of the pound, Her Majesty's Government are reconciled to the inevitability of political union. Again, if I am wrong, let my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary say so unequivocally, but I should perhaps warn her that many Conservative Members will need much convincing that political union does not follow monetary union as surely as night follows day.
I say to the House in all sincerity and with all due humility, this is not an enterprise to be entered into lightly. What we are talking about is the ending of 600 years of parliamentary democracy; the ending of the freedom of the British people to make their own laws in their own Parliament and according to their own preferences freely expressed in British ballot boxes.
Abolition of the British pound would be the final curtain call for the independent nation state. The issue cannot be fudged. The party managers cannot hope to finesse the outcome of a vote on a matter of such crucial importance. I call on our Government to dismiss the proposition for what it is—a mischievous and highly dangerous irrelevance which serves only to distract us from all that we might otherwise be more profitably doing.
11.14 am
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I am grateful, as I am sure are other hon. Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for initiating the debate, although they do not necessarily agree with most of the points that he has made.
If it does not offend anyone, I should like to follow my hon. Friend's excellent principle of not necessarily giving way to interventions because I am sure that that will allow more hon. Members to take part. I hope to be brief.
At the beginning of last November, the European Commissioner in charge of the EMU plans, the French Commissioner, Yves-Thibault de Silguy, confirmed yet again that the European Union is on target to commence the single currency by 1 January 1999, the expected date of commencement in Europe generally—at least in the rest of Europe.
That statement runs contrary to the superficial counter-propaganda that appears in some British newspapers—they have been growing in number slightly recently—that appear to be nervous and timid about the prospect. They constantly seek to undermine the plans, usually because of the reactionary attitudes of their non-British owners and short-sighted editors. The journalists have to follow suit because, after all, everyone is involved in the circulation battle.
The Commissioner's robust reaffirmation was welcome to those who are keen on this most exciting project and was particularly welcomed—it was mentioned specifically by a number of people—in what I would call financial and City circles. It also fits in with the optimistic and realistic expectation of the Commission President, Jacques Santer, who has now on three separate occasions emphatically reaffirmed his expectation that seven to nine countries could be in line to join in the unified currency system at, or close to, the target date without any impairment of the existing convergence criteria.
There is an interesting possibility that one of the best candidates for convergence criteria realisation will be the United Kingdom although, officially, the Government have
290
our reserve on the opt-out, which seems to meet with the support of most of my hon. Friends for the moment. That is a reserve which in no way says that the United Kingdom is against monetary union or Britain joining it; it just says that we will make that crucial decision at a later date depending on the circumstances that are then emerging.
In the same November statement, Mr. Silguy reiterated, with enormous justification, once again the main objectives of the single currency system. The first is to boost growth and job creation in the future throughout the single market. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is right to point up differences in unemployment figures because the member states' economies have not reached the full real economy convergence, aside from the statistical convergence that is necessary under the programme, that will gradually come as more and more intra-community trade develops. We know already how high our export ratio is to the other European countries.
Secondly, Mr. Silguy reiterated with great emphasis the need to eliminate the unnecessary bilateral and multilateral exchange costs that come from having different currencies in a single market. It is an interesting phenomenon, and a puzzle to me, that Conservative Members, and politicians and others in the United Kingdom generally, who are rightly keen on the single market in all its aspects, which are numerous, from specifications to measurements to trading conditions to standards—the whole edifice of the single market, which is more than just a trading area, as we know—are against the most essential lubricant of the single market; the need for currency harmonisation.
Those extra costs, which exist as a result of having differential currencies, aside from the disutilities of the fluctuations that occur, are estimated conservatively to be a minimum of 0.5 per cent. of combined European Union GDP. That is a vast amount of unnecessary expenditure. I should have thought that it was a good Conservative philosophy not to be in favour of unnecessary, expenditure and wasting of money.
Thirdly, the French Commissioner said that one of the crucial objectives was the cutting of costs for companies—the corporate sector is the most important aspect of that—to ensure that they are not burdened unnecessarily. Conservative Members are rightly keen, particularly with our deregulation policies—this is an aspect of that—to cut the unnecessary costs that companies face. During the past six to nine months, virtually all finance directors have probably expressed the view that the single currency is necessary.
Most important, however, is the need for the single currency not merely to satisfy keen pan-European politicians—regardless of the member state to which they belong—or, indeed, the central banking elites, but to be in the interest of consumers, who, under the Maastricht treaty, are now citizens of the European Union as well as of their own countries. European consumers—patriotic British, French, German and Italian consumers—are increasingly mobile: they want to move around the European Union in economic as well as social and holiday terms, and they rightly want the best possible bargain as purchasers of goods and services.
Boosting mass interest of consumers in the prices of consumer durables and all the available services—to be quoted in the same currency denomination or price expression—would be of enormous advantage to the

291
public. They are slowly beginning to realise that, although—as has been said—they are understandably apprehensive because of false propaganda in the British papers.
I shall give an example of what I am describing, to calm the excited spirits of some of my colleagues who, as we know, wish to live in the past. It is generally recognised that, for some inexplicable reason, motor car final retail prices in Britain are generally higher than those in Belgium, France, Germany and other European countries. Apart from duty differences, no one really knows the reason for that. About four years ago, the Department of Trade and Industry carried out a wonderful investigation, but reached no conclusion other than blaming the sinister impact of some intermediaries—and even that was not properly explained.
We can imagine how the British public—Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen—would feel if car prices were expressed in the same currency denomination, in terms of the euro or whatever it will be called in the future. They would be able to compare the prices of many other consumer durables as well. That is the magic of the single currency and the single market. It is better to bear that in mind than to theorise about convergence criteria, low inflation rates and all the other matters that—understandably—preoccupy the central bankers.
The Commissioner's November statement was important because it provided the basis for Commission and European Union plans for Ministers' policies, and because it was accepted by member Governments at the time. The Commissioner rightly avoided any partisan comments about what the United Kingdom or Denmark should finally decide to do, equipped as those countries are with their reserve opt-out. However, he felt strongly—and I agree with him—that it would be in the United Kingdom's interest to remain an active participant in the detailed preparations for the commencement of the new currency on 1 January 1999.
I thank the Government wholeheartedly: although, for self-evident reasons, we have that constitutional, legal and political reserve, they have participated fully in all the working groups and other preparations as though we were going to join the single currency in any event. That is, of course, unavoidable; it would be very difficult for the Government not to participate, and no final judgment arrêté arises. The Government are simply being very practical. I believe, however, that their actions will in due course help to reassure the public that a single currency is an attractive proposition.
We are not talking merely of the practitioners in the financial markets, and all those who must deal with the increasingly old-fashioned syndrome of European currencies clashing and bumping against each other without any real rationale. Let me offer a chilling reminder of the behaviour of the United Kingdom's national currency. Since 1950, or the year before, when the deutschmark was established, the pound sterling has fallen by 90 per cent. against the deutschmark, which is the most successful currency in Europe.
The general perception is that, in broad output and production terms, the German economy overtook the British economy—sadly for this country—in 1955. Since then, the pound sterling has depreciated against the
292
deutschmark by 79 per cent. Lest those of us who are consumed—as we all too often are—by huge prejudices against our friends in Italy think that the Italian lira has performed less well, I should point out that the difference is not great: the lira has depreciated by 84 per cent.
The sad reality is that that progressive depreciation of the pound has not built the United Kingdom up into a strong, high-output, dynamic economy. Economists never agree about anything, but if one factor can be singled out as the most important it is the rate of reinvestment in new assets. That must be the characteristic of the future strength of production, and of the balance between manufacturing industry and other services in significant economies.
I only wish that Britain were ahead of Germany now. We would have been if, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, we had pursued different currency and reinvestment policies—but, for numerous reasons, that was not to be. Certainly, the latest devaluation of sterling has led to no long-term, durable improvement in the British economy, although I welcome the short-term cyclical improvement. It is good to see the economy recovering in a short-term statistical sense.
We should note the courage of the French in maintaining a high-currency policy despite the pain being experienced in Paris. The French franc is now higher against the pound than it was in December, despite what the British newspapers have said. That policy is now creating a high-production syndrome in France, similar to that in Germany. It will achieve the desired result in the longer term.
We need to exercise common sense in regard to the single currency. We must wait to see how convergence develops. I think that the United Kingdom will be a prime candidate, but we should show more self-confidence, and feel more excitement about the future and more willingness to explain the issue to the public. I am sadly, but understandably, reluctant to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.
11.26 am
Sir Teddy Taylor: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has been consistent in his views over the years, I think that, as a truthful person, he would accept that the opinions that he has just expressed are now held by a minority in the Conservative party. The party has woken up. I find it a tragedy that the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches are virtually empty. We simply cannot persuade Labour and Liberal Members that monetary union is not a miracle, and will not bring benefits.
Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the almost complete absence of Opposition Members demonstrates that Labour is soft on European union, and soft on the causes of European union?
Sir Teddy Taylor: The last thing that I want to do is attack the Opposition parties. I want to persuade them that they are supporting a policy that will create unemployment, misery and degradation. I only wish that every Labour and Liberal Democrat Member would read the book by Mr. Connolly, the man who headed the department dealing with economic and monetary union in the Commission. He put at risk an easy, cushy number—

293
a big job with big pay and big prospects—because he believed passionately that economic and monetary union would create mass unemployment and civil unrest. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing that we can do to persuade people.
Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, few Conservatives would support monetary union. The Minister—she, too, is a truthful person—could help to involve the public by answering five brief questions. First, what about the tragedy of France today? France is one of the loveliest countries in the world, and contains the most fascinating people, but it is now creating more and more unemployment. It is putting people out of work and creating human misery solely for the sake of a mad policy of artificial exchange rates, which every Conservative wishes to have nothing to do with. Surely the Government must accept that our experience in the exchange rate mechanism, France's current tragedy and Germany's problem of 4 million unemployed demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that fixed exchange rates are simply a recipe for mass unemployment.
As for civil unrest, if Britain were involved in monetary union—if we had high unemployment and, for good European reasons, the central bank decided to raise interest rates—people would be outraged. They would protest. They would go to the politicians, and would find that they could do nothing. I wish that the Government—despite the sincere views of the tiny minority in our party who still support the crazy socialist nonsense of fixed exchange rates and monetary union—would just come out and say, "We will have nothing to do with it."
However, I move to my questions. First, is it true that, if we get involved with the euro, all our gold and other reserves must be handed over to the European central bank? People should be told the answer. I hope that the Minister will answer so that, through Hansard and through our wonderful press, people can be told the facts.
The second question is: is it true that, if Britain were involved in the euro, no Minister, no individual, no banker, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East would be allowed to make representations to the bank about its policy? We all offer advice to the Bank of England and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is appalling that we are going to have a central bank running a nation's economic affairs and that, under the Maastricht treaty, we will not even be allowed to make representations to it. Of course, that may just be silly Euro-sceptic nonsense, but the Minister knows the facts. Her splendid civil servants, who are running up and down to all these meetings all the time, know the facts. Is that true or not? We must be told everything about that matter.
The third question is important to the Conservative party. I was delighted—because I know that, if anyone can solve this problem, our Prime Minister will—to hear the Prime Minister say that Britain will not re-engage in a fixed exchange rate system such as the exchange rate mechanism. My reading of the Maastricht treaty—this is only as interpreted by the European Court of Justice—is that one cannot join the single currency in the first stage unless one goes through two years of fixed exchange rates.
During those two years, in which lots of money will be splashed around to try and create convergence, there will be lots of misery and unemployment, but is it true that, if one is to be one of the first participants in the single
294
currency, one must go through two years of fixed exchange rates, which, unlike the ERM, will be irrevocable and irreversible? If so, it would seem from what the Prime Minister said that there is no way in which Britain could be one of the first participants in the euro. People should know about that.
Mr. Barry Legg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. I would like to shed a small bit of light on this matter. When he returned from the Madrid summit, the Prime Minister said to the House that the convergence criteria under ERM conditions no longer applied. Does that not reinforce the fact that the decision to move to a single currency will be primarily a political rather than an economic decision?
Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is expressing the sort of fears and worries that I have. It is exactly because of that that I should like the Minister to say what the truth is. If we are going to be one of the first guys in the euro, do we need two years of fixed exchange rates? If so, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that we will not be one of those chaps? That is a simple question; it is not complicated. It would be helpful if the Government would answer yes or no.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I regret breaking into my hon. Friend's speech, but he will know that, subsequent to the statement in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question on this issue from a prominent friend of ours among the Opposition, and the matter is not as straightforward as it appeared when he made his statement on his return from Madrid. I remind my hon. Friend that the criteria are set out in the Maastricht treaty, which is the law of Europe, and that, to have any change in the Maastricht treaty, there must be a treaty amendment, which would have to be ratified by every country in the European Union.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for explanations. He shows that the situation is confusing, but this is where the Treasury can help us. We want to know the facts. Is it true that we need two years of fixed exchange rates and, if so, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that we will not be involved?
The fourth question we must ask is: what are the conditions for countries that join at a later stage? It would be appalling if what happened under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson, were to happen again. I well remember how Britain unofficially joined the ERM without anyone knowing about it. This is meant to be a democratic House of Commons and assembly, and we became locked into that business without anyone being aware of it. We did not join officially; we joined unofficially. I hope therefore that the Government will help to clarify those four issues, which are terribly important. In particular, will they say what the conditions would be for joining at the second stage and whether the House of Commons would have an opportunity to express a view?
I have opposed the European Community from the beginning, and have believed passionately that it means misery for poor people, high prices and policies such as the common agricultural policy that cannot be changed. Of course, the Government will be aware that this year

295
the CAP budget is £9 billion more than it was two years ago. We are all told that it will be reduced, but we know that all those assurances are absolute rubbish. It is terribly important that the Government answer this simple question: do they believe that, before any decision is made to contemplate joining the European Union, the people of the country must be asked?
Frankly, I do not think that most people are aware of the matter. It is not simply a matter of saying, "Do we have a currency that we can go to France and to Italy with?" Basically, if one accepts the single currency, in effect one is accepting a single European state without democracy. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a well-behaved person, but the one thing that sickens me, and the only time that I feel like punching people—I really mean this—is when I hear a Conservative Minister say, "We are going to fight a federal Europe." There is nothing more sickening or misleading than that statement because a federal Europe would be infinitely better than what we have. It would at least have a democratic base and lay down guidelines on what belongs to the centre and what to member states. With a single currency, we are planning a single European state without democracy and, more important, a socialist state.
The whole principle of the European Union is artificial pricing, which unfortunately creates massive problems. The monstrous CAP policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) supports so lustily, has meant that the average family in Britain spends an extra £28 a week in higher food prices and taxes. Nothing can be done to reform it—if only people would wake up to the fact that that simply cannot happen. The average family in Britain will pay an extra £5 a week for the net membership fee this year. Poor people are suffering and jobs are being destroyed.
Sadly, as Mr. Connolly rightly stated, across the whole of Europe, including dear old France, fixed exchange rates, where they are applied, are putting decent people out of work unnecessarily, and creating an appalling mess and misery. Question No. 5, as the Minister is aware, is: do the Government think that big countries or big organisations have a better future than small countries? Around the world today, all conglomerations of states are not doing well; small countries controlling their own affairs and applying Conservative policies are doing very well.
I shall give just two tiny examples. The first involves a little country called Switzerland. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will have heard of it. How did its exports to the European Community do last year? Strange to say, they increased dramatically more than Britain's did, and that happened by Switzerland not being in the European Union.
Referendums took place in Sweden and Norway. In Norway and Sweden, in which I am interested and which I visit regularly because I am involved in the Ansvar insurance company which promotes temperance, all the people were told that they had to join the European Union to safeguard jobs. The same old Confederation of British Industry blokes we have here told them all that joining was vital. Poor old Sweden voted yes, although I told it not to, and Norway voted no.
What has happened since? Sweden is in an appalling economic mess. I have never heard of such devastating Treasury action taking place in any European country.
296
Norway has never had it so good. If we look around the world—at little countries such as Japan and other countries—we will find that prosperity and growth are occurring in small and independent countries and not in ones that get involved with the big battalions.
Mrs. Gorman: What about that little country Great Britain, which is doing more trade with China than it does with any of our European partners?
Sir Teddy Taylor: As always, my hon. Friend is right. She showed great courage and determination in saying such things when we were laughed at and harassed in the party.
Mr. William Cash: Yes.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes, indeed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has not had an easy time, but my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has had a terrible time with people attacking her. Her views are now accepted by the vast majority of the party, and I am obviously glad for her. Still, having said that, I should like to pay tribute to her courage and determination throughout this period.
We must remember that, if we are to survive as a small country off Europe we must go for world trade, low costs and the Conservative policy of getting away from artificial subsidy. I believe that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is a straight and honourable person and I hope that, instead of voicing the usual Treasury nonsense, ambiguous words and things that mean nothing, she will tell people five simple facts. I have asked her for factual information. I know that we will receive that information from her and that it will be a major contribution to this desperately important debate.
In the next election, how great it would be if it was made clear to the people of Britain that the Conservative party will have nothing to do with this undemocratic, socialist job-destroying nonsense, and that the Labour party—sadly for the working class—will be supporting that nonsense, as will the Liberal Democrats, for reasons that I have never understood. If the people had a choice, they could vote for freedom and liberty and the end of all this nonsense. If the people could have a choice, it would be great, but it would require the Government to take a firm stand. I am sure that the Minister would be willing to do that; I hope that the Government will also.
11.40 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My friends and family sometimes tell me that one of the many reasons why I have never been asked to join the Front-Bench team is that I have an uncanny habit of naively exposing the fact that I am not as sophisticated or well informed as many people, and that I should keep my mouth shut when I do not know what I am talking about. I am not an economist and, unlike many of my hon. Friends, I feel insecure in talking about economic concepts. There is not a great deal of harm, however, in exposing to the House the type of difficulties that the ordinary punter faces in this debate.
I was brought up to believe that devaluation, on the whole, was to be avoided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has pointed out, however, we have been engaged in devaluing the pound since the

297
time I was born, and certainly since the second world war, yet those who most passionately resist any attempts to devalue never seem to talk about any of the costs that are involved therein.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Everyone is against devaluation or debasement of the currency. It is important to realise that devaluation of the currency occurs when one has economic inflation and then resists the consequential adjustment of exchange rates, leaving an imbalance between the exchange rate and the real value of the currency which causes the economic dislocation. That is what occurred when we were in the exchange rate mechanism, and that is what occurred under the gold standard.
Mr. Rowe: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge, but his contribution does not explain the devaluations that occurred in the years before the European Union was even dreamed of.
National power is one of the main issues in the debate. The truth is that the world was once on the gold standard because it was the currency that the United Kingdom used. Worldwide, people wished to be linked with our currency to give their currencies credibility—a function of the enormous power that was wielded by this country. I have told the House before that we are no longer in a position to dictate to anyone in the world. That has marked consequences, shown most clearly in the Suez crisis when the world decided that it did not wish three sovereign states to continue a war and simply pulled the plug on them.
We are in no position to stand alone. Our armed services are so small that, with the exception of certain fire-fighting activities, there is no way that we can operate alone on the world stage. We require the sort of co-operation that is taking place—one hopes with happy results, eventually—in Bosnia. Except in certain cases, we do not even make our own armaments. We make bits of them because we are entirely dependent on our partnerships with manufacturers in other states. The process of gradually moving towards one another is accelerating.
As an ordinary layman, I become rather confused about why there is the tremendous imperative from above to drive us towards a single currency. A single currency will emerge during the years ahead, as sure as night follows day, as we do more and more business with our European partners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East said, as more people travel through Europe and find that constant currency adjustments are expensive and tiring, we shall find that businesses increasingly wish to make use of a single currency unit. Big businesses will start the process, small businesses will follow, and tourists will follow that. In my lifetime, I do not expect to be able to buy a loaf of bread in my village bakery—should it manage to resist the supermarkets that long—with a single European currency unit.
Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not give way at all, but he has kindly referred to me twice. Is it not interesting that consumers who go to other European countries are increasingly using credit cards rather than getting too much currency? The equivalent, therefore, is that the single currency becomes the credit card without any charges or expenses.
Mr. Rowe: That is entirely true.
298
Having a national currency is no guarantee of independence. I have just returned from Nepal, which is desperate to preserve its national independence and have its own currency. The idea that it is not wholly overshadowed by India, its enormous neighbour, is nonsense. I do not believe that the preservation of our national currency is a guarantee that we will not lose our capacity to act independently. That capacity has been substantially diminished over the years, for the reasons that I have set out.
We are engaged in an extraordinarily acerbic debate about something that has been made more immediate than it should have been by the pressures from the European Union and the central bank. I should much prefer us to evolve towards the single currency which I am sure will follow.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is making a case, albeit not a strong one, for joining a single currency. Given that any single European currency would include Greece and Portugal—that would happen if he were to have his way—would it not be rather better to join with the dollar and the United States?
Mr. Rowe: I am reluctant to join any closer to the United States. I am fond of the United States and think that it is a fine country, but I should infinitely prefer to resist a great many of the influences that come from it. I do not wish to be closer to a country whose racial problems, for example, could be imported into this country. I do not want such a divide in the United Kingdom. The American culture seems to be destructive of many of the values that we in the House hold dear.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who initiated the debate, for being elsewhere earlier and not hearing his speech. Does not the intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) tell us something interesting about that section of the parliamentary Tory party? The fact that the Americans have concluded a North American Free Trade Agreement in which, unless I have missed something, they did not expect the United Kingdom to participate speaks volumes. Does the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) think that such an approach has any economic coherence given that we are part of a single market?
Mr. Rowe: It is fair to say that my hon. Friends do not stress the fact that we should also join Mexico, although they may prefer Mexico to Greece and Portugal.
It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the origins of the European Union arose from a passionate desire that Europe should not yet again plunge the world into war, the cost of which would dwarf any costs that might be incurred by joining a single currency. This country was ruined as a consequence of our incapacity to contain German expansionism. We have been provided with a mechanism for containing any possible future threat from such expansionism and I am extremely wary of taking steps to turn our back on that.
Mr. Legg: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rowe: I think that I have given way enough. Other people wish to speak.

299
The European Union must make an effort to contain precisely those pressures that have cost the western world enormous amounts of money, resources and anxiety in Bosnia, to take just one example.
We should therefore evolve towards a European currency, which will come about inevitably, without our having to make artificial efforts to create it. Our membership of the European Union is a partnership that stands by far the best chance of resisting the enormous internal conflicting pressures within the continent of Europe. I hope that we shall not try to bulldoze the Prime Minister and the Government off the strongest position that they can hold, which is that, if other countries adopt a single currency, the United Kingdom will then consider whether it would be beneficial for us to join. The pressure that some of my hon. Friends wish to put on the Prime Minister to say that, whatever happens in the European Union, we shall never consider joining a single currency, would weaken his position absurdly. I hope that they will cease to pressure him in that way.
11.52 am
Mr. Anthony Coombs: First, I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important subject and for pointing out that a single currency enjoys not only minimal popular support in this country but dwindling support throughout Europe. The gulf between the political elite in Europe and popular opinion on this issue is increasing, which is extremely dangerous.
I was going to begin by saying that the single currency is an idea whose time has come and now, thankfully, gone. Far from moving smoothly towards its conclusion in 1999, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) would have us believe, its wheels are falling off as it moves forward. We have been told that the convergence criteria are being achieved. But only Luxembourg—not exactly a major player in Europe—currently meets those criteria. In 1993, the franc had to be loosened from its 2.5 per cent. band to a 15 per cent. band within the ERM.
It is interesting to read some of the comments of former Maastricht enthusiasts in France, quoted in The Economist this week. Julien Dray, a leading left winger and author in 1992 of a pro-Maastricht book, said that if the fight against the budget deficit was simply to meet the Maastricht criteria,
"our fellow-citizens will rightly soon be saying that they have had enough of this Euro-construction which requires nothing but sacrifices in the name of an Eldorado which no one is any longer sure even exists."
Even Martine Aubry, a former socialist Employment Minister, who happens to be the daughter of Jacques Delors, conceded that a single currency was
"not worth breaking the country to acquire".
Jacques Delors has argued that, if the French and German economies slow down, the deadline for European monetary union and a single currency will not be met. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East would like us to believe that the French and German economies are not slowing down. The latest figures show that, for the past three months, German gross domestic product has been
300
falling. In France, industrial production over the past three months declined by 6.4 per cent. If that is evidence of their moving smoothly towards the convergence criteria, those who argue it are living in cloud cuckoo land. Theo Waigel, the German Finance Minister, is also gradually distancing himself from the idea of a single currency by arguing for additional criteria and hinting that Italy and possibly France could not meet them.
The wheels of the single currency are undoubtedly falling off, and the reasons are obvious. First, the idea of a single currency is fundamentally flawed. At a time when European countries need to be more flexible in terms of dealing with the "challenge of global competitiveness", a single currency would impose a straitjacket on them by requiring unrealistic convergence criteria in fiscal terms. It would have no popular mandate in terms of the huge transfers of money from one country to another that would be required to make it work. For example, interest rate changes would have a far greater effect on Britain than on other European countries, for the simple reason that more people in Britain own their own homes. It has been calculated that, in Britain, the effect of interest on ordinary householders as a proportion of their household debt is 10.9 per cent., whereas in Germany it is only 3.9 per cent. and in France it is 3.2 per cent. So the effect of ceding decisions on interest rates to a supranational body would be far greater on British householders than it would be on French or German householders.
Secondly, the Maastricht criteria are, inevitably, heavily deflationary, especially if they are related to the strongest currency, as the Germans insist that they must be, through the exchange rate mechanism. As a result, as we have seen in France, Germany and other countries that have become constricted into preparations for the convergence criteria, our economy would probably gradually contract.
Moreover, budget deficits, the reduction of which is a major Maastricht criterion, will not be reduced as a result of cutting Government spending. That would be a virtuous way of achieving the criteria, especially for countries like Germany where nearly 50 per cent. of the country's resources go to the Government. Instead, they will be reduced by raising taxes, which will make the problem far worse in the long term. It will also worsen the problem of Europe's global competitiveness. So the criteria impose a fiscal straitjacket, whereas strenuous slimming is needed.
The third reason why it is becoming increasingly evident that a single currency is unrealistic is that it is not only anti-competitive but totally unnecessary. The Germans are so keen on it because they want to lock other countries into the very high social costs that they now endure. No less than one third of GNP in Germany goes on maintaining the welfare system, and the add-on to the average wage to cover welfare costs is no less than 80 per cent. As a result, the German economy is becoming increasingly sclerotic, and Daimler, Volkswagen and Siemens—companies that one would think of as paradigms of German competitiveness—have lost 150,000 jobs between them in the past few years.
It is small wonder, therefore, that even people such as the chief executive of the CBI, Adair Turner—he has never been exactly regarded as a Euro-sceptic—have described the inevitable concatenation of a single currency with the social chapter as "an employment-destroying disaster" here and throughout Europe.

301
A single currency is also unnecessary, and even the EC is admitting that there is no particular correlation between exchange rate stability and investment or trade flows within the trade bloc. As for Britain being marginalised, I would frankly prefer to be marginalised if our economic performance continued to improve as it has done in the past few years when we have not been part of the ERM, as opposed to how constricted we would be were we a part of it. As evidence for that, the president of the German equivalent of the CBI recently said not only that Britain had attracted nine times as much inward investment as Germany in the past 15 years but that it was the European country best equipped to face the challenge of global competitiveness. That is a result of the flexible, free-market policies that we have been following in this country, away from the constrictions of European monetary union and the single currency.
The main flaw in the single currency enterprise is that its main aims are not primarily economic—however flawed the arguments may be—but political. Helmut Kohl talks about an
"irreversible process for which decisive steps will follow in the next two years".
Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Union between Scotland and England was primarily political?
Mr. Coombs: Precisely. My hon. Friend makes my point for me.
When one sees the vilification poured on Bernard Connolly for having the temerity to challenge the intellectual basis on which political union and the single currency are based, the concern felt by many in the EC and the Commission at the feebleness of their arguments becomes ever more evident. The irony is that a single currency will not work unless the conditions for political union are in place. It is obvious that the conditions for political union are not in place, and there is no public support for regarding Europe as a federal body or entity in the way in which a successful single currency would inevitably require.
It is time that the Government recognised that a single currency is a flawed and eventually disintegrating enterprise. It would be very much in their interests if they committed themselves to a referendum on a single currency, if it ever happens—although I do not think that it will ever come to that, and the matter will remain, happily, entirely hypothetical.
Contrary to the Labour party—which is six-sided and hypocritical on this matter as it is on so many policies—we would gain a great deal of political credit if we recognised the single currency as the chimera and myth that it undoubtedly is, and said that to the British electorate.
12.4 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). My hon. Friend referred to Bernard Connolly, who has been a good and faithful servant of the Community and has pointed out some of the inherent problems with the way in which monetary matters are managed.
The debate has focused on a subject which has consumed a great deal of the 20th century: the adjustment of exchange rates between one country and another.
302
We can go back to the post-first world war settlement, Winston Churchill, the gold standard and the famous and wonderful pamphlet by Maynard Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill", the Bretton Woods settlement, through to the fixing of exchange rates by the mechanism that Europe developed. Unfortunately, we joined that system and had some very unhappy experiences in it.
My purpose is not to look at the economic side of the matter, although we know full well that only 44 per cent. of our total trade—visibles and invisibles—is with the continent of Europe, that the principal foreign currency in which we trade is the United States dollar and that we have a critical relationship with the US. Whether the proponents of the single currency or its opponents like it or not, our economic cycles seem to follow more closely those of the United States than those of the central European countries.
I wanted to look at the constitutional argument, which has divided part of our Government and Opposition Front Benchers, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition. Article 107 of the Maastricht treaty, which is justiciable, states:
"When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB,"—
that is, the European system of central banks—
"neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. The Community institutions and bodies and the governments of the Member States undertake to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB or of the national central banks in the performance of their tasks."
That is reinforced in chapter 1, article 7 of the constitution of the European system of central banks.
I understand that to mean that no elected representative of the British people—including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or, should Labour come into office, its Chancellor—may make representations to the central bank in respect of monetary policy, to cite one area. This is a huge constitutional change, and so profound. How is it possible for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he has no constitutional problem with that?
If the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister, what will he say to the millions who vote for Labour when our economy is out of joint with the central European economies? What will he say when interest rate policies pursued in Frankfurt are not appropriate for the British economy? What will he say to all those who elected him? Will he say that we no longer have the constitutional power? Is that what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying by his promotion of the endeavour?
I suggest that it is a profound constitutional area and it startles me slightly to understand that, on the very basis of article 107 and the subsequent articles, any British Government could contemplate turning round to their people and saying, "I am afraid central European interest rates, although not appropriate for us, are the governing factor." We will then ask what the Government are doing about that and whether they are making the sternest, strongest representations to the government of the European central bank. The present Chancellor would no doubt reply, "Oh no. What does it matter? I no longer

303
have authority as we signed it away by treaty without any consultation with the British people." I have not heard a reply from the Prime Minister on that subject, and we have great difficulty in pinning down the Chancellor to specific detail on such matters of great importance.
I had thought, and this may be based on the over-optimism of someone who watches things come and go, that the clear experience of joining a fixed exchange relationship, which ended so tragically and unfortunately less than three years ago, would have exorcised from the mind of the House the desire to enter into something even more absolute. Let us remember that exit from the ERM gave us the ability to make our interest rates more consonant with the needs of the British economy. That was the constitutional power of the British Government.
Now, under the Maastricht treaty, the Leader of the Opposition says that the Labour party has no constitutional difficulty about denying us, the people, the right to influence output, employment and all the necessary apparatus of sensitive management of an economy.
12.10 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hesitate to intervene in the debate lest I interfere in the private grief of the Conservative party. I suspect that all parties have their own reservoirs of private grief to entertain them. The Minister and I have agreed to be relatively brief, and for that reason I should prefer not to take any interventions as there is a lot to say on the issue.
I welcome the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on raising an issue of such enormous importance to the people of Europe in the coming decades. It will not surprise him when I say that I fear that the Labour party does not agree with him. The Labour party approves of the principle of economic and monetary union, but believes that questions about the practicalities still need to be resolved. In principle, we believe that in the long term a move towards economic and monetary union through the creation of a single currency would produce significant benefits for the people of Britain and Europe. In particular, a single currency would remove the cost of currency transactions, which have been variously estimated to cost in excess of £15 billion per year. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that such transactions account for 0.5 per cent. of GDP of European currencies. It is also likely that a single currency would boost inward investment by reducing exchange rate risks, and in the long term it would create a more stable economic environment for industry by reducing currency speculation.
Unlike the Government, the Labour party has a clear principle to guide it when assessing the criteria and practicalities of entry into a single currency. Getting the circumstances right is important to the Opposition. We will take a hard-headed, businesslike view of the costs and benefits of a single currency. If approached wrongly, a single currency could do enormous damage to the British economy; if approached correctly, it could be a great stimulus to trade expansion, new jobs and prosperity.
The Opposition's criteria for judging the issue are clear. We believe that the convergence of the real economic performance of member states is a vital precondition of
304
economic and monetary union. Convergence must be based upon improved levels of growth, jobs and productivity, and not just on monetary objectives alone. That is why we have long argued that the Maastricht convergence criteria need to be applied flexibly and that real economic convergence is of primary importance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) said that the Prime Minister had suggested that the Maastricht criteria no longer applied at all—I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.
I was pleased to see that page 1 of the report from the European Monetary Institute on the circumstances for EMU contained the following sentence:
"For there to be a successful European currency area, a high degree of sustainable convergence of economic performance in the participating area is a pre-requisite".
We in the Labour party agree with that. I was also pleased to note that during a recent debate in European Standing Committee B the Paymaster General agreed that Labour's policy that economic convergence was a prerequisite of entry to a single currency had now been accepted by the Government.
The Labour party also believes that, on entry, we should be confident that British industry will be able to compete effectively within the single currency area. Furthermore, and in response to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the Labour party has always said that it wants the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers to be developed as the political counterpart of the proposed European central bank to give the public a voice in shaping economic policies. The move towards a single currency must also be based upon the consent of the British people.
The Labour party's first commitment in Europe is to jobs for our people. That is why we back the Swedish proposal to write into the Maastricht treaty a clearer commitment to full employment. Labour's vision is not of a Europe for bureaucrats or politicians, nor is it just a Europe for business—although we want business to succeed and prosper—our view of Europe is a community for ordinary people. We want workers to have better rights at work. That is why the Labour party will sign the social chapter and join our European partners in setting a minimum wage. We also want the unemployed to have jobs, which is why we put economic convergence before monetary criteria for joining the EMU.
The Opposition want a Europe in which Britain has a central role—where it is, in the Prime Minister's own words:
"Where it belongs, at the very heart of Europe".
Under the Tories, Britain has been reduced to the sidelines in Europe. The Prime Minister has sacrificed the interests of Britain to the interests of the Tory party.
The Tories are now so divided that they cannot agree the agenda for Britain's future in Europe. Some of them would crawl forward; some of them would go into reverse. I have made the analogy before and I will repeat it today. The Prime Minister reminds me of the driver of a stalled, clapped-out old bus marked "Conservative party". He sits there watching his passengers squabble while he tells them that he is not going to start the engine. The reason is that he is unable to move. He knows that if he starts and moves either way some of his passengers

305
will get out. Two of them have already vacated the old bus. The Prime Minister dares not move, so he spends his time inventing excuses for doing nothing.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member was not present for the entire debate, so I will not give way to him.
Because of the Government's policies, Britain is marginalised and isolated. We do not know whether the Government support the principle of European monetary union. The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying:
"There is no more important issue facing the European Community than the path we choose towards economic and monetary union. We are all committed to this goal."
Does that remain the Government's position? Who knows, least of all, I suspect, the Prime Minister? The Deputy Prime Minister has said:
"No truly unified market can exist without a single currency. A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the single market itself is not to be put at risk."
Is that Government policy? Who knows, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister? Are the words of the former Conservative Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, the policy of the Conservative party? Is it based on the words of the Secretary of State for Defence? He has said:
"Economic and monetary union are a long way to political union and no Government can give up the government of the UK."
Who knows whether that is Government policy, least of all the British people? We simply do not know the Government's principles on this matter. As a result, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) recently said, so simply but accurately:
"Our partners in Europe do not listen to us."
They do not listen because the Tories continue to play the British hokey cokey—in, out, in, out, shake it all about. They are having a pointless little dance, which is played to placate the egos of the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches, but which, by turns, now simply irritates or amuses our European partners.
It is fair to say that over the years all political parties have had their internal disagreements about Europe. It is also fair to say, however, that historically there has always been leadership from the leaders of both parties, whether Macmillan or Gaitskell, Alec Douglas-Home or Harold Wilson, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, Lord Callaghan or Baroness Thatcher. In each case, leadership was displayed—a sense of direction was clear for the Government of the day. Today, we have a divided, disorganised and disunited Cabinet, which fails to provide the sort of vision that Britain needs on the European issue.
The decision to publish a White Paper on the intergovernmental conference was dictated by internal struggles within the Tory party. It was a victory for the Europhobes. It is vital that British interests in Europe are determined not by parties' internal problems but by a genuine appreciation of where those interests lie.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked the Minister five questions. Let me put our five questions about the White Paper and Government policy. Do the Government agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that a single currency is not
306
"a threat to the nation state"?
Do they agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that a single market needs a single currency? Can they say whether, in the unlikely event of their re-election, a single currency is a possibility in the next Parliament, if the economic conditions are right? If the economic conditions were right, would the Government in principle favour persuading the country that it was right to join a single currency? One must ask whether they are prepared to agree with the following statement:
"Some observers hope—and others fear—that economic and monetary union as set out in the Maastricht treaty will be a step in the direction of a federal Europe… I believe that such hopes or fears are unrealistic".
Do they agree with that statement by the Prime Minister? Of course they do not.
The Government do not know what they want on Europe. In a sense it does not matter, because by the time the decisions have to be made, the Government will be gone. The divisions in the Tory party will be played out, as we have seen in this debate. The Tory party is taking up positions from which to fight its civil war in the long period that it is about to undergo in the wilderness. Meanwhile, there will be a Government with a clear vision, sense of direction and agenda for Britain's future in Europe, and it will be a Labour Government.
12.20 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for obtaining this important debate. It shows the importance that the Conservative party attaches to European matters that so many of my hon. Friends are here. It also shows the absence of concern on the part of Labour Members about a matter of vital importance for Britain that they feel that they have better things to do elsewhere.
Mr. Jenkin: They are beating up Harriet.
Mrs. Knight: I should not like to speculate about that, but we shall find out at lunchtime what happened.
I suppose that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) should be congratulated on his efforts to find a fig leaf to cover the absence of a Labour party policy on Europe. He spoke about clear principles. Perhaps I may remind him of statements made by three of his Front-Bench colleagues recently. We shall be interested to know with which of these statements he agrees.
Perhaps the hon. Member for North Warwickshire agrees with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a single currency:
"Yes we are against a single currency".
Perhaps he agrees with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that he was
"Personally…in favour of a single currency";
or with his party's Members of the European Parliament, who are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and timetable. Or does he agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said some time ago that setting such a timetable was "irresponsible"? Those clear variations exemplify a party with no policy on this vital topic.

307
I consider all the points made by my hon. Friends in this debate to be important and I will answer as many of them as I possibly can. On those points that I do not reach, I will write to my hon. Friends giving full and detailed answers.
The Government have consistently said that the United Kingdom would join a single currency only if it was in the national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. It is because the Prime Minister secured our right to opt out that Parliament and the Government can take a decision at the appropriate time in the light of all the circumstances.
I remind the House of the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he said:
"I can certainly reassure my right hon. Friend that, for a decision of such magnitude, we shall keep in mind the possibility of a referendum, if the Cabinet were to recommend British entry. That has been in my mind, as my right hon. Friend knows, for a long time and it remains there. I think that it is right to keep that before us for consideration."—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1225.]
I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree with that.
It is clear that it would not be in the national interest of any European country to proceed with a single currency—or in Europe's interest for any country to do so—before conditions were right. A premature economic and monetary union could be disastrous for the future of Europe. Given the importance of the United Kingdom's trade with the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world, we have a strong interest in making sure that such a disaster does not occur, whether or not we take part.
The convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty aim to ensure that economies are moving in the right direction towards economic convergence, a necessary condition for economic and monetary union. However, the criteria of reducing debt and low inflation are sensible economic criteria in their own right.
Growth rates in many European countries are relatively sluggish at present, a point made by many of my hon. Friends. The problems that France is experiencing spilled over into the streets at Christmas. Its economic activity has slowed substantially, strikes have destroyed jobs, unemployment is 3 million and rising, and a high percentage of the work force is unemployed. Germany also reports economic difficulties, with new investment plans being directed to former eastern European countries or to lower-cost countries such as Britain.
Fulfilment of convergence criteria, while necessary, is still an insufficient condition to ensure successful economic and monetary union. The criteria represent nominal convergence. That is important but only alongside proper convergence, which requires economic liberalisation to encourage economic growth—the sort of measures that we have already enacted. If Europe wants proper convergence to make a single currency obtainable, it will have to follow suit.
Integration of markets is important for assessing whether countries are ready for EMU. That is illustrated by unemployment, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Ludlow. High unemployment is a problem for many of our European partners. It is rising in Germany
308
and high in France. In Italy it is 11.5 per cent. and in Spain over 22 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it is at 8 per cent. and falling. Of the five largest European economies, Britain is not just doing well but doing substantially better than the others. It is worth looking at the reasons why that is so.
In Britain, for every £100 spent on wages, an employer has to add an extra £18 for non-wage costs. That same employer would have to add £32 in Germany, £34 in Spain, £41 in France and £44 in Italy. Those are substantial additional costs.
The head of the German CBI recently said that German labour laws were "too rigid" and that social costs and taxes were "too high". He added that Germany worked
"the shortest working week in Europe"
and that
"the German Government spends 50 per cent. of GDP as opposed to 34 per cent. in Britain".
He went on to say:
"No wonder Germany has a problem".
The Germans' proposals to help reduce their economic problems include reducing employers' social costs—a policy that has been followed by the British Government. In addition, they are talking about cutting income tax—precisely what the British Government are doing.
In a week in which hypocrisy has hit an all-time high, is it not grossly hypocritical of the Labour party to want to introduce a European jobs tax into Britain by adopting the social chapter and thereby, at a stroke, increasing unemployment in Britain? Hypocrisy is saying one thing when another is in fact true. We all want Europe to follow the more flexible wage markets, lower tax burdens and lower non-wage costs that we have in Britain. We have the basis of an enterprise economy, and foreign investors recognise that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow asked about the pros and cons and costs and benefits of a single currency. It is too early to judge the costs and benefits, as the Prime Minister said in the debate on 1 March. That illustrates the value of the United Kingdom's opt-out, because it is impossible to judge something until one gets closer to it. The views of industry vary considerably. The business world has mixed views on the subject, but UK businesses are sure that if the single currency goes ahead it will have important implications for them whether or not Britain participates, so it is important that it is well planned. One reason why Britain is participating in the negotiations is to ensure that practical issues such as that are properly considered.
The City of London is also a subject of vital concern. It is a centre for international financial excellence and innovation and it is the overwhelming choice as the European headquarters for major international banks. It handles more currency than all the other European Union centres put together and I am confident that it will remain competitive and rise to the challenges, whether or not the United Kingdom participates in the single currency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East raised five issues, which I shall address one by one—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am afraid that we must move to the next topic.

ROM-Data Corporation
12.30 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: I am pleased to have been granted this short debate, as there are important questions to be answered about the ROM-Data Corporation and the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry grant aid has been given to companies in the south-west. I am happy to allow the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to have some time to speak in the Adjournment debate that I have initiated.
The south-west is in great need of economic regeneration; there has been a rundown in defence industries and many of the primary industries that used to exist in Cornwall and parts of Devon. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, unemployment is high, not only in Plymouth, but in Falmouth and Camborne. That is why inward investment is essential to create new jobs and improve the long-term economic conditions of the south-west.
I welcome the regional office that has been set up in our area, which has helped to make improvements in some of those sectors. I fully appreciate that there are limited and finite resources available for that assistance, which is why those resources must be used well and effectively. I also appreciate that, when those grants are given to companies, spotting winners is difficult, that only some companies can benefit from those funds, and that no Department can ever guarantee success. It is sometimes easier to spot losers and guaranteed failure.
The Department of Trade and Industry has an absolute responsibility to undertake the most careful checks before large sums of taxpayers' money are given to any company. At least two factors must be considered: the first is that a proper, skilled assessment of business plans must be conducted by an independent authority. Secondly, careful checks into the financial background of directors should be carried out to discover any former bankruptcies, liquidations or even fraud.
In the case of the ROM-Data Corporation, various questions are raised. The first involves the competence of the advice given to the DTI. The second relates to the DTI's policy when giving grants to people with dubious financial backgrounds. Were checks made of the ROM-Data Corporation? Was there a full and proper scrutiny of the company's business plans before the grant was made?
I shall give a brief history of the ROM-Data Corporation. It was set up in Falmouth in 1991 to do the job of data processing. In that year, it received regional selective assistance of £825,000 of taxpayers' money—a substantial sum. It is the sort of sum that many companies in the south-west would like to enjoy, and they would welcome receiving a fraction of it. A promise was made that many jobs would be created.
Early in 1994, wages and value added tax were unpaid, and, I believe, the company approached the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who assisted it to obtain more time to pay the VAT. That is what any Member of Parliament would have done in those circumstances.
Later that year, the company received £250,000 of loan guarantee—another substantial sum of taxpayers' money—despite the fact that it had not been paying wages, and was clearly experiencing financial difficulties.
310
At the end of 1994, not only were wages and bills unpaid, but the company went into liquidation. It left many creditors; the wages of many workers in the Falmouth area, Cornwall and Devon were not paid. Many small businesses suffered as their bills were not settled.
The question must be asked: what checks were made in 1991 by the DTI into the directors of the ROM-Data Corporation, particularly Mr. John Dawson? Mr. Dawson was a former Bath Conservative councillor whose firm, John Dawson (Motor Holdings) Ltd, in 1981, suffered a spectacular bankruptcy—one of the largest bankruptcies in the south-west at that time. Mr. Dawson left more than £2 million of debts. Wages were unpaid; there were many creditors—many of which were small businesses—who were hurt when the company went into liquidation. I believe that Mr. Dawson fled to the West Indies on his yacht, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
What checks were made into Mr. Dawson's background, and, more importantly, what did they reveal? The DTI Minister, Baroness Denton, wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who had quite properly inquired why one of his constituents had not received his money from ROM-Data. On 12 January 1992, the Minister wrote to the hon. Gentleman saying:
"all applications for Regional Selective Assistance are rigorously appraised by officials within this Department."
The hon. Gentleman must have pressed the matter further on behalf of his constituent, as the same Minister admitted on 2 April 1993 in a further letter to the hon. Gentleman:
"Mr. Dawson may have made a commercial mistake in his past."
She was presumably referring to the liquidation that amounted to more than £2 million and the fact that the police were looking for Mr. Dawson in 1981.
On 2 March last year, I asked a question of the former President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, about what checks were made. The answer that I received stated:
"A range of inquiries were undertaken by the Department and others into the background of ROM-Data, including checks on the directors of the company through the Companies House and the insolvency service".—[Official Report, 2 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 716.]
On 19 July 1995, I asked a further written question of the President of the Board of Trade. I asked him whether the Department was aware of the previous bankruptcy of the director, John Dawson. The reply that I received stated:
"The Department made certain inquiries into the background of the directors prior to the offer of grant in 1991. However, the bankruptcy record referred to did not come to light at the time."—[Official Report, 19 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1562.]
The bankruptcy did not come to light, despite the checks that had been made with the Insolvency Service, but, in 1993, Baroness Denton had had the information at her disposal—she said that Mr. Dawson had
"made a commercial mistake in his past."
She must have known then the information held by the DTI, so why was that not made clear in the answer before the House in July 1995?
When pressed on the matter of the checks, the new President of the Board of Trade came clean in a written answer to me on 19 December last year. He said:

311
"although some checks may have been made…the subsequent investigation has revealed no documentary evidence that these checks were made."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1091–92.]
In a further letter to the hon. Member for Ryedale, the President of the Board of Trade said of the answers given to me earlier in the year:
"Answers which had been given earlier this year…were misleading."
In his letter, he underlined the word "were".
The answers given to me in the House were indeed misleading: they were untruthful and incorrect. The President of the Board of Trade said that checks were made, but in December he said that there was no evidence that those checks were made. The President of the Board of Trade has therefore admitted that the previous President of the Board of Trade misled the House on that important issue.
I shall now discuss the way in which those grants are assessed. A panel has been set up by the DTI, composed of people employed by the DTI, to inquire into those matters. I have not received answers from the President of the Board of Trade, which were due on 15 January 1996, to questions about the role of a Mr. Kenneth Holmes. I believe that he was an accountant. He was appointed to the DTI, I believe in the late 1980s, to help assess grant applications to decide whether they were the right type of applications to be eligible for substantial grants.
I ask the Minister today, because he has failed to answer that question so far in written questions that I have tabled: was Mr. Holmes involved in the vetting of the ROM-Data application for grant in 1991? The answer needs to be given to that, and I shall return to that later.
Was it known that Mr. Holmes, as it is alleged, has been involved with other companies that have had financial difficulties? I quote the company H. Bear and Sons, which he bought in 1987, which I believe went into liquidation in 1989.
If Mr. Holmes vetted the ROM-Data application, was he given permission by the DTI to become, on 21 November 1993, not only a director but the chairman of the ROM-Data Corporation? Only 12 months before ROM-Data went into liquidation, the man who had approved the grants had become a director and a chairman of a company that subsequently went into liquidation. The company has left unpaid the wages of constituents of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, and has many creditors for more than £2 million. I am pleased to note that the Serious Fraud Office is now inquiring into those matters.
Does the Minister approve of employees of the Department of Trade and Industry, who are carrying out the extremely sensitive work of vetting grants of substantial sums of taxpayers' money, becoming directors of companies that have benefited financially from their own decisions? How does he feel about a DTI official approving a grant and later becoming a director of that company, which then owes the DTI that money? Is it a coincidence that Mr. Holmes, like Mr. Dawson, is a member of the Conservative party? I believe that his wife is vice-chairman of the Totnes Conservative party. In spite of his liquidations, Mr. Holmes carries on in a very comfortable life style.
312
The DTI should have conducted a searching internal investigation, and a careful analysis of what went wrong. I have been told by the President of the Board of Trade that those investigations are now complete. They are so detailed that, I believe, the two most important players, Mr. Dawson and Mr. Holmes, have not even been interviewed. I want to know from the Minister why those two people have not been interviewed in connection with that important matter.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, in whose constituency the events occurred, has acted honourably in this matter throughout. He played a part in helping the ROM-Data Corporation to defer payments of VAT, as any hon. Member would have done for a time.
I believe that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne also helped the company obtain the loan guarantee. I question whether that was entirely wise. I notice that, in July 1995, the hon. Gentleman was quoted in the Daily Mail. He said that he had not investigated Mr. Dawson's background
"because I am only an MP and cannot be expected to rush off to Companies House to check out track records every time a business wants help".
[Interruption.] A quick check with the House of Commons Library would have given him the information he wanted.
Even if that was not good enough, the hon. Gentleman may also have read the Western Morning News, which, as early as 3 June 1992, published an article entitled "£2m debts that haunt high flier". If the hon. Gentleman had read that, he would have known that that man was extremely dubious. Was not the hon. Gentleman slightly suspicious that Mr. Dawson was not paying his constituents' wages? He nevertheless helped him to obtain further assistance.
I called the debate with some reluctance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I had to call it, because we are not receiving satisfactory answers from the President of the Board of Trade to questions. [Interruption.] I believe that the previous President of the Board of Trade has seriously misled the House in that matter. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The debate is becoming a little cantankerous. I ask hon. Members, however provoked they feel, to observe the highest standards of courtesy.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Conservative Members who appear to be disturbed by the truth coming out about this matter will make their own contribution to the debate, and tell us what their part was in the matter.
We need a thorough investigation into the way in which those grants were made in the south-west. I am sure that any hon. Member representing the south-west would agree that we need to help genuine companies, those that can create real jobs and buy from other companies to create other jobs. That will not be achieved until the DTI makes known its plans to improve.
The case of ROM-Data shows what happens if one mixes together a solution of taxpayers' money, incompetence by officials, obfuscation by Ministers, a large handful of people in the same political party and

313
a generous supply of greed. A rich soup is created, in which taxpayers' money may be misappropriated and corruption may thrive.
12.45 pm
Mr. Sebastian Coe: I resent being limited to barely a few seconds in a discussion that centres on my constituency.
It is a matter of record that I drew attention to most of the issues that have been mentioned in the debate well in advance of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). More than a year ago, I expressed my anxieties about the way in which the company had operated, and its subsequent liquidation, to one of my hon. Friend's predecessors at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).
It is a matter of record that ROM-Data was given a grant to set up in my constituency in 1991—a year before the general election, a year before I was honoured with the stewardship of that constituency. The hon. Member for Devonport mentions the way in which the vetting procedure may or may not have taken place, and I know that that is the subject of a full and thorough inquiry within the DTI, which I instigated and asked for more than a year ago.
Several issues have been raised, but I do not wish to enter into those, as they will be the basis of that inquiry and the President of the Board of Trade has promised to report back to the House.
I want to tease out two or three issues. It would be odd for a Member of Parliament representing a constituency with higher levels of unemployment than in most parts of the country, to sit on his hands when confronted, in the space of three or four days, with the potential loss of 170 jobs in his constituency. I very much doubt that the hon. Member for Devonport would have acted differently in those circumstances.
No local Member of Parliament has the ability to rubber-stamp or hand out a Government grant. There is a lengthy application process, in which many agencies in the constituency—and in this case the county—are involved. That is what happened in the case of ROM-Data. All types of agencies were involved, including economic development organisations. Jobs are important. No Member of Parliament will sit and do nothing when there is the potential for job losses on that scale in his or her constituency.
Broader issues should be discussed. The hon. Member for Devonport spoke of the need to vet grants. Of course that is paramount in any process. However, he has failed to say that, in my constituency, like his, and in much of the south-west, our lifeline is regional selective assistance and grants. That assistance should be provided.
I recently met an all-party group of councillors and local business men in my constituency. They said that they were aware of the way in which the ROM-Data case has been dealt with, and the way in which the hon. Member for Devonport has made mischief and slowed the process dramatically. I am delighted to be joined in the Chamber today by my fellow Conservative Members of Parliament from Cornwall and the south-west, who know that those delays have not been helped by the actions of the hon. Gentleman.
314
It is a difficult issue, and we must tease out and examine various points. However, the manner in which the hon. Gentleman raised the matter this morning leaves something to be desired.
12.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I have listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members this morning, and I shall attempt to deal with them in the short time available.
I refer at the outset to the allegation by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that Mr. Holmes was a Department of Trade and Industry official. I state categorically that that was not the case.
I shall continue with some general remarks about the way in which the Department has approached the case. First, I make it absolutely clear that Ministers accepted from the beginning that it was important that the facts of what occurred should be investigated fully and properly, and that the results should be made known. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and others have been active in raising concerns about the case, and Ministers have been equally anxious to discover what has happened.
That is why the Department set up a formal investigation into the handling of the case as soon as problems became apparent, and why the Department drew the case to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office. Above all, it is vital that we know what happened and why, so that we can take effective action to ensure that there is no repetition.
Secondly, we have made it absolutely clear that we shall be open about what went wrong, both to ensure that we get to the bottom of what has been a lengthy and complex sequence of events, and, more importantly, to ensure that nothing is done to impede or prejudice in any way the investigation of the events by the Serious Fraud Office. That investigation is continuing, so I am limited in what I can say today about the company's actions, or about particular individuals who might be the subject of further proceedings. I also must not prejudge the further inquiries that are being made under the Department's internal disciplinary procedures.
However, I assure hon. Members that we intend to be open about the matter. That is why, as soon as it became clear that answers to earlier questions from the hon. Member for Devonport might have been based partly on inaccurate information supplied by officials, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade warned the House of that possibility. When, following further investigation, it became clear that that had occurred, he informed the House immediately. It is in that spirit of openness that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to report the findings of the Department's investigation to the House as soon as he is able to do so. That will not be long delayed.
The Department's internal report on its handling of the ROM-Data case has now been completed. Ministers have received the report only in the last few days. It deals with a series of complex events which must be considered carefully. However, Ministers remain committed to making the Department's findings public as soon as possible. The Department will also consider taking further action under its disciplinary procedures. That latter aspect,

315
together with the continuing investigations by the SFO, makes it difficult to say much about the role of individuals at this stage.
The DTI has rigorous procedures for handling public money, which are communicated to staff in extensive written guidance. The Department's financial procedures and systems are regularly checked by its internal auditors and the National Audit Office. My initial impression of the common theme running through the report's findings is that the main problems resulted from failings in the way in which the specific ROM-Data case was handled, rather than major deficiencies in the Department's overall systems and procedures—although clearly improvements can, and will, be made in a number of areas.
We shall consider how to implement the report's various recommendations for improvements in existing procedures once we have had the opportunity to consider them properly. They are essentially concerned with detailed additions to the existing systems and procedures. In light of the findings, the DTI will also pursue the necessary further inquiries under its internal procedures in order to establish whether and what disciplinary action should be taken against any staff members.
I had intended to run through the chronology of events at ROM-Data. However, as time is limited, and as most hon. Members are aware of that chronology, I shall not do so. I turn instead to the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
My hon. Friend was obviously concerned about the failure of an important local employer and a company which had received substantial sums of public money. As the constituency Member of Parliament, he had quite properly and assiduously supported the company's application to secure a loan guarantee scheme loan which offered an opportunity to protect jobs in his constituency. In so doing, he acted in the same manner as any hon. Member seeking to fulfil his proper role in this place. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Devonport would not have done the same thing in similar circumstances.
Mr. Jamieson: I would have checked.
Mr. Oppenheim: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that directors' backgrounds should be checked every time that Labour Members lobby for regional selective assistance or a loan guarantee scheme grant, I suggest that he conduct a poll of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I will be amazed if he can find one Labour Member who has done such a check.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had quite enough time to put his case.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, because he contacted Ministers as soon as he became aware of possible irregularities in the case. I make it absolutely clear that he was the first person to contact Ministers following the company's liquidation. He immediately passed all his
316
information to Ministers, and he has kept in close touch with Ministers since then. He has acted properly and constructively throughout.
Ministers want to get to the bottom of the matter, put right any failings by the Department and be as open as possible about the circumstances. As soon as Ministers heard about the ROM-Data case, they asked the Department for an urgent report. The contents of that initial investigation, which was conducted in February 1995—shortly after the meeting with my hon. Friend—led to the decision to establish a full internal inquiry into the Department's handling of the case.
The inquiry's terms of reference were extended subsequently in light of emerging concerns—for example, concerns about earlier ministerial answers that were given on the basis of inaccurately supplied information, to which I have referred already. Parallel work by the Department on the circumstances of the ROM-Data Corporation led to the establishment of a separate SFO inquiry after the Department had referred the case to the SFO in August 1995.
The Department aims to find out what happened, where, and how any mistakes were made in its handling of the case, and to suggest ways of preventing such failings occurring again in future. I attach particular importance to that last point, as will be apparent from what I have said about the important action that the Department will take. It is clear that there have been procedural failings, and, if we find that DTI officials have breached the Department's rules of conduct, they will be held to account through the Department's disciplinary procedures.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has taken up half the time available for debate. He raised a series of complex issues, and I am doing my best to address them. I must add that most of those issues had already been raised separately by my hon. Friend in whose constituency the problem occurred. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Devonport has any constituency interest.
The SFO must determine whether others have acted improperly, and its inquiries are continuing.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me, but I have only a few minutes in which to conclude my speech.
Finally, I shall put the unfortunate events into context. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne pointed out, regional selective assistance is a highly successful and popular scheme. Last year, the DTI offered grants of £159 million, which are expected to result in £1.3 billion in new investment and the creation or safeguarding of 36,000 jobs. In the same year, we wrote off less than £2.5 million. That is too much, as no one likes to see public money lost. However, some failures are inevitable and the RSA failure rate is extremely low. We must learn the lessons from this case, in order to prevent any repetition in the future.

Rest Homes
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before the House debates the next topic, I want to point out that although the Adjournment debate embraces different topics, technically it is one debate, so that any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to speak twice should seek the leave of House. That is the case for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait).
1 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker and I hope that, with the leave of the House, I may be permitted to speak again. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rest homes for the elderly, and to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for kindly taking time out from a busy day to respond to my concerns.
I have long taken an interest in rest homes for the elderly, and the debate was provoked by a document from the Centre for Policy on Ageing, "Home Life II", to which I shall refer later. First, I refer to the bed blocking that occurred over Christmas because social workers, for all sorts of valid reasons including flu, were not available to ensure the appropriate care. Many of my constituents involved in the rest home sector made the sensible proposal that in such cases, there is no reason why a hospital could not discharge into a rest or nursing home, for respite-type care over a brief period, people who could so benefit. Hospital beds would not be blocked, but available for more crucial cases, and social workers would have adequate time to make an assessment. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could throw that suggestion into the melting pot of ideas when his Department considers the matter.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend's constituency encounter the same problem as Lancashire, where the Labour-controlled county council keeps open expensive county homes rather than use more efficiently run and cheaper private homes?
Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. That problem exists in East Sussex, as in other counties. Sometimes it is caused by people being inappropriately allocated to nursing homes, rest homes or domiciliary care. General practitioners have reported seeing bed sores of considerable size and complexity on elderly residents in rest homes who should be in nursing homes. Similarly, there are people in domiciliary care who should be in rest homes. At one stage, Lancashire county council was maintaining people in domiciliary care in their homes on packages costing £1,000 a week. I understand that that practice has come to an end, but in Hertfordshire, payments to private sector nursing homes have reduced from £370 to £350. Some nursing homes have been allowed residential care beds, with an insistence on the same staffing levels, and are paid only £250 a week. It is not difficult to anticipate the problems as county pressure increases on the private sector to reduce nursing home fees to £250 to cater for Hertfordshire residents, while county-owned beds will be considerably more expensive.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, East Sussex is currently wasting £4 million a year by overpaying itself to the extent of £100 per week per bed. The solution is to
318
split the purchaser from the provider. As long as the present system remains—whereby social service departments are providers and inspectors and they let the contracts—we shall continue to receive justified criticisms from the private sector.
The Centre for Policy on Ageing was instrumental in producing the Government-sponsored report "Home Life", which set out rest home care standards that are generally accepted and agreed. Subsequently and under the same chairman, Lady Avebury, the centre established a further working party to produce "Home Life II". In fairness to the working party, Lady Avebury and the centre's director, Gillian Dalley—who has been helpful in advising me—I shall quote from a letter that Gillian Dailey wrote to me, referring to
"the draft which has been circulating without the Advisory Group's authorisation."
She wrote also to everyone who commented on the draft:
"The draft of the revised document which many of you have seen was an interim draft not intended for public circulation because further work and editing was going on."
I completely accept that explanation, but when the draft entered the public domain of the rest home sector, it caused those of my constituents who are rest home owners and others throughout East Sussex promptly to contact me, because of the history of Government sponsorship of "Home Life". The fear was that the Government had sponsored "Home Life II" as well.
The interim draft included the recommendation that every rest home room should measure 12 sq m, excluding bathroom facilities, and that 15 sq m would be better. In Hastings and St. Leonards, we are in the process of raising a large sum to help our local voluntary association for the blind to provide rooms that measure 10 sq m—the current standard. It does not take a big leap of the imagination to appreciate the effect on the private, public and voluntary sectors of a requirement for rest home rooms measuring 12 sq m or 15 sq m.
The interim draft's other recommendations include:
"Residents should not be thought of as objects of charity to be entertained through carol singing or children's plays, or be recipients of harvest festival goods or Christmas presents."
That is one of the draft's more ludicrous suggestions.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And patronising.
Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend is right.
One of the interim draft's more impractical suggestions is:
"Commodes should only be used as a last resort. Portable chemical toilets are a better option."
I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the down side of chemical toilets.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Certainly those of us from rural areas.
Mrs. Lait: Those of us from rural areas are well aware of the down side of portable chemical toilets, and I am sure that we would not want many of them in rest homes.
Rest home owners anticipate problems with recommendations such as:
"The window cill should be low enough so…resident can see out when seated or lying down. There should not be horizontal bar obstructing vision."

319
Many rest home residents are a bit dodgy on their pins and it does not take much imagination to realise the risk of nasty accidents in the absence of window bars. That apart, many rest home windows are of Victorian or Edwardian design. Their replacement would not only involve expense but require extraordinarily long and complex planning negotiations. Further, the document states:
"Annual accounts should be readily available to residents, relatives, inspection units and other organisations involved."
In one sense, I have no difficulty with that. I just hope that local authority homes could provide that information, because one major criticism from the private sector is that local authorities cannot do so.
The recommendation in the document that strikes terror into hearts of my local rest home owners is:
"Homes which fail to meet these standards will be required to make changes in order to meet them."
That is the most draconian requirement that I have come across in the guidelines. The National Care Homes Association, the East Sussex Registered Rest Homes Association and many others to whom I have spoken point out not only that the recommendations are expensive, but that they are inappropriate in a number of cases and are not suitable for many residents of rest homes. They are prescriptive and coercive. They do not allow for innovation, change and local interpretation by the people who run the rest homes and who are expert in providing good standards of care, as most people involved in the sector know.
The document is a motherhood-and-apple-pie wish list. I am told by the Centre for Policy on Ageing that it is amending the list. If anything like it was ever to emerge into the light of day officially, that would not just kill off the private sector, but the voluntary sector could not comply with its requirements. The public sector in its present state certainly would be unable to comply in most cases. I rather suspect that the public sector would try to comply at enormous cost to the public purse. That might mean a wider provision of beds by it. It would not utilise the expertise of the private sector, which would be forced out of the business.
If one is a conspiracy theorist, one can perhaps work out some of the thinking behind the document. However, I believe in a broad and wide provision of rest home and nursing home care and I do not wish to see anything done that would make the private or voluntary sector less competitive and less able to offer the high standards that those sectors now offer.
I am conscious, because of the research that I have done, that alternative work is being down by bodies such as the Residential Care Forum, which may produce some standards that people will find more compatible and easier to provide. We know from the past that, when guidelines come out, they are treated so often as law. Registration officers and social services insist that the guidelines are met. Too often, the guidelines are entirely physical and do not take into account elements such as the friendliness of a home and the involvement by owners and staff in ensuring that residents feel that they are living in their own homes. That is one of the keys to providing the best standards of care in the rest home sector.
320
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could repudiate the report and ensure that the Government will not in any way encourage such guidelines to be used in the rest home sector. If any further standards are to be encouraged by the Government, they should be produced in collaboration with the key people in the sector—the owners.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend referred to the voluntary sector. I am sure that she is aware of the superb work done by the Abbeyfield Society. In Lancaster, we have been fortunate for some years to have a go-ahead chairman, Mr. Chirnside. Many Abbeyfield homes are doing a superb job, but they would find it very difficult to comply with those guidelines, even the modern ones.
Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good point. I was tempted to mention all the people who provide such good care, in both the voluntary and the private sector. Many organisations, some very large and some small, have helped me in my research, but I was conscious that I would like the Minister to have as much time as possible to reply. Therefore, I am afraid that I refrained from commending many of the people who produce such good care in that sector.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) for raising this subject. In another place, this would be called the dinner-hour debate, and it is perhaps appropriate that we take this half-hour to consider care for some often vulnerable people in our society who need to be looked after safely and of course with common sense. That is the flavour of the debate and of my hon. Friend's speech.
I have noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) about bed blocking and the inefficient use of the independent sector by some social service departments in providing or obtaining good-quality care for people who need residential care.
The debate gives me the opportunity to put the record straight on a matter that I know has been brought to the attention of and exercised the minds of a number of hon. Members in the House and one or two in another place. As I have said, I have noted the comments that have been made today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who is in his place, has also written to me about the subject.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that the draft publication known as "Home Life II", which has so upset owners and managers of residential care homes, is nothing whatever to do with my Department. The publication is the work of a group set up by the Centre for Policy on Ageing, which is a wholly independent organisation. The document is not the result of a Government working party, we are not funding it and we are not associated with any of the draft recommendations in it. I hope that that is clear. There has been some misunderstanding because of the origins of the original document, "Home Life".
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has quoted sensibly from the draft document and has drawn to our attention some of its absurdities. There are others.

321
The requirement that residents' bedrooms should have not only television and radio, but music centres strikes me as strange for a residential home. My hon. Friend referred to the mention of carol singing and Christmas presents. She might also have referred to the fact that the document claims that
"An objective measure of food acceptability is to weigh and record plate waste."
The requirement on window sills and horizontal bars has been mentioned, but the document also suggests that every room, irrespective of personal need, should have a remote control system for closing windows and drawing curtains. As my hon. Friend said, the document is a wish list that goes beyond sensible borders.
The document also contains a glossary, which includes such gems as
"gender—all words indicating one gender must always include both genders"
and
"singular/plural—words indicating singular or plural always include the other".
And again:
"Life is always taken to include all aspects of life, physical, medical, social, cultural, spiritual, economic".
The term "relatives" is primarily used to describe people living outside the home
"whether they are related or not. It certainly includes friends".
Perhaps my favourite quotation is:
"Positive/negative—statements often have an equivalent negative/positive statement. The opposite is always assumed to hold even if it is not stated."
If you can work that out, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you.
We know that this is a draft, not a final document, but it has caused unnecessary concern among home owners and people living in homes. That is unfortunate. As I said, the document has nothing to do with our Department; I hope that it is now being revised in accordance with the commonsense response from my hon. Friends, among others.
There are some things in the document with which we would all agree and many others that are unexceptional—but I share the concerns about some of the contents. A number of statements in the document are far too prescriptive. They attempt to play nanny or to interfere in the lives of residents in an unnecessary way. There are some ludicrous examples, too, of political correctness. We have not been asked to endorse the publication and there is no question of that endorsement being given to the sort of ideas that we have heard discussed today.
If there is a "Home Life II", there must have been a "Home Life I". There was: it, too, was produced by the CPA, and that one we did endorse. It subsequently became widely used as a standards document by homes and regulatory authorities. But that was in 1984 when the Registered Homes Act was being introduced, and there was a widely recognised need for standards in homes to be improved.
Since "Home Life" was first published, a number of other, similar documents have been published. I could cite a range of them, including "Homes Are For Living In" and the "Caring For Quality" series published by the social services inspectorate. Any successor to "Home
322
Life" will need to find its own place among those and other new publications being planned, for example, by the Residential Care Forum.
Whether or not we endorse particular documents that try to define standards for homes, we all recognise how vital it is that homes provide quality care. But I believe that that can be done while avoiding unreasonable and costly demands—of the sort my hon. Friend has highlighted—being placed on homes, and unwarranted interference occurring in the lives of residents. Homes, after all, are for living in. Moreover, the wish to see quality care should not lead us to too much prescription. We are committed to keeping the regulatory burden on homes to the necessary minimum, without loss of safeguards for residents.
We believe that much can be done to maintain and improve the quality of care by a sensible dialogue: a partnership between homes and authorities—and above all, between homes and authorities on the one hand and residents and families on the other.
Local standards for homes should be drawn up by authorities only after full consultation with providers, and those standards should be published. Such a process means that homes know what is expected of them and authorities have a clearer appreciation of what it is reasonable for homes to do. It also means, in accordance with the citizens charter principles, that potential residents will be provided with more and better information about homes.
Guidance about the local development of standards and other regulatory matters was issued to all authorities by my Department last September.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that while we are always seeking information from private homes, it would be no bad thing to get rather more information from the county homes?
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. As she will know, we require county homes to be inspected against the same standards as are expected of the independent sector.
Critics of our determination to improve regulation of homes have, I believe, been proved wrong. We did not abandon the law. We took steps to restore a sense of appropriateness to regulation—keeping things in proportion, cutting paperwork, seeking consistency in enforcement practice within and between authorities, and targeting enforcement effort. All that will benefit everyone. Residents will benefit by not having their homes unnecessarily examined or invaded in an unco-ordinated way by a range of bodies. They will also benefit from care staff not having their attention unnecessarily diverted; and of course taxpayers will benefit from better value for money.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we should go soft on poor homes in any sector: far from it. We expect regulatory authorities to take all necessary steps to bring low-standard homes up to scratch. The law provides authorities with all the powers that they need to take enforcement action in the light of the evidence concerned. We expect them to take similar action—this answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster—when their own homes are not up to scratch.
Our community care reforms are now in place. Our community care development programme is about moving on from consideration of structural changes.

323
I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friends. We now want to concentrate on improving the quality of life of the people who rely on services. That is certainly true of care homes. Better outcomes for residents mean listening to what they say, involving them as far as possible in decisions about their care, and allowing them to exercise choice and control. Residents must be valued and their needs not subordinated to the needs of the home or the opinions of local authorities or inspectors.
Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend referred to the need for residents to be given choice. Is he confident that all social service departments are giving residents and prospective residents the widest possible choice of homes to go to? Is he aware that social services still exhibit some restraint when offering choices to prospective residents?
Mr. Bowis: The answer to the first question is no, and to the second question, yes. The problem is that they do not offer enough information about all the options that are available. I should like some improvement in that area. Assessment and care plans should ensure that residents get the care that they need. Privacy, confidentiality and sensitive treatment are all essential. Much can be achieved by the idea of partnership between the home and its residents.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I came to the debate to listen to a speech by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) about standards of care in homes, but the debate might have been better entitled, "The business interests of private care home owners". I was saddened to note that, in a 14-minute speech, the hon. Lady did not mention residents' interests once.
We are talking about vulnerable people, and I am pleased to hear the Minister, at least, talking about their interests. The current review of the 1984 legislation is worryingly underpinned by a belief in deregulation that
324
forgets the fact that people in care homes—I have talked to some of them—feel demeaned when they receive third-hand apples and oranges at harvest festival.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this is a short debate—and interventions should in any case be short.
Mr. Bowis: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not go on to criticise the nonsense in the draft document—unlike my hon. Friends—but I suppose that that shows the differences between our parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye did talk about the interests of residents. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SSI recently published a report—"Responding to Residents"—based on an inspection of local authority homes. There are many important lessons in it for all homes in respect of providing individualised care for residents. For many elderly people, it is important that homes do not become too restrictive—as the document under discussion seems to be—or lead to a loss of continuity or contact with their past lives. Relatives and friends should be encouraged to participate in the life of the home and how care is provided. A friendly, domestic environment should be maintained, and there should be opportunities for contacts with the wider community to be developed in accordance with residents' wishes. They should be allowed to have their own possessions around them. There should be sensible policies on risk taking, and encouraging residents to pursue leisure activities or to go outside if they feel that they can and wish to do so.
Many good homes provide such care now, and others are working to get there. A review is under way on inspection and regulation. I believe that it will open up some of the debates on how we should seek those qualities and standards in the future. We have seen considerable growth in the independent sector in recent years. One of the concerns that the review has is that we do not wreck the quality of the homes with a whole panoply of regulation. We are exploring that area in the review so that providers can be treated even-handedly.
I believe that I have had the opportunity to clarify our stance on the CPA's draft and to emphasise our concern to see standards in care homes maintained and improved, in full collaboration with providers—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the next topic for debate.

Health Provision (Bradford)
1.30 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns and, more importantly, those of my constituents, about health provision in Bradford. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will wish to comment on this important matter.
It is my belief, as I hope to prove today, that Bradford people are losing confidence that their national health service will be able to meet their medical needs when they require it. I have no intention of talking down the health service. I am proud that it was a Labour Government who set up the national health service based on need. Indeed, I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and health workers, who are acting above and beyond the call of duty. I shall read an extract from a letter that one of my constituents, Mrs. Jean King, whose mother is in hospital, wrote to the chief executive of Bradford hospitals trust. She says:
"I am writing both to compliment and complain. The compliments are directed at your nursing staff and the complaints are directed at your organisation. All credit must go to the staff, they never complain they just get on with their duties as best they can. They look tired, stressed and they are definitely overworked. I am sure that they know they have not got the time to give the sort of service they used to give.
My mother has become depressed and distressed, not because of her illness but because nobody has the necessary time to give her the sort of care which used to be available for patients.
My mother is only one of many needy patients on that ward who try not to trouble the nurses because they can see how busy they are."
In another letter, one of my constituents, Mr. Key, makes further mention of the shortage of staff. Unfortunately, his wife passed away in hospital. He said that, in the last few days of her life, she was concerned about being moved into a side ward, as she feared that she might not be heard because the staff were so busy. Eventually, to benefit her family, she agreed to go into a side ward. She died with the alarm button in her hand.
There are many other cases that I could quote, but the constant theme remains the same: grateful thanks to the doctors, nurses and health workers, but harsh criticism of the system.
Bradford nurses still have not received their pay rise in their pay packets, due to the financial crisis facing the hospitals trust. That crisis is based on the faltering relationship between the purchaser, Bradford Health, and the provider, Bradford hospitals trust. The evidence is that, in the past, both parties had to go to arbitration to confirm their financial settlements, as Bradford hospitals trust claimed that it was not receiving the appropriate funds. To balance the books, the trust has had to make efficiency savings, which have resulted in savage cuts in the number of staff, the closure of wards and the loss of beds. That in turn has affected morale among hospital workers, who have seen the quality of their service deteriorate and the number of skilled and qualified staff reduce. At the same time, the number of administrators has increased, due mainly to the bureaucratic relationships and complexities of the purchaser-provider split.
In Bradford, we have seen an increase in the need for charitable donations to provide much-needed equipment, particularly in the care of cancer and heart patients.
326
The death two weeks ago of my constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Cranswick, was a great tragedy, not only for a loving family who lost a special person but for Bradford. Mr. Cranswick collapsed in his doctor's surgery. His general practitioner tried to save his life, and hospitals in the area were contacted for an emergency admission to intensive care. Bradford royal infirmary has only five intensive care beds, four of which were in use at the time. The fifth bed was unavailable because of staff shortages. Eight other hospitals were contacted in the region until a spare bed was found, in Scarborough. Sadly, Mr. Cranswick died just after arrival in Scarborough.
Bradford's population of 485,000 deserves more than just five beds. Following the announcement of Mr. Cranswick's death, the director of nursing services commented:
"For the size of our population we look to be lacking in Intensive Care beds at the moment".
That is somewhat of an understatement. In December, 19 people needing intensive care had to be transferred outside the Bradford area.
The irony is that Mr. Cranswick was a tireless worker for the British Heart Foundation. I believe that a full inquiry is needed into the circumstances of his case. I hope that his family's pleas for extra intensive care beds will be heeded as a fitting memorial to him. I have a relevant quotation from our local evening paper in Bradford, the Telegraph and Argus, which said:
"There is obviously a nationwide problem. It is hard to work out whether the crisis is the result of a shortage of funds—or due to mismanagement of resources and bad planning."
The Secretary of State for Health is the man ultimately responsible for sorting out the mess. The Government created the new-look NHS. They must ensure that it stops failing people when they are in desperate need. The indications are not good. When I raised a question in the House about the problems of purchaser-provider splits, I was told that it was a matter for the chief executive of the trust and for the commission. I believe that to be an abdication of responsibility. The Government should and must act when things go wrong.
Again in December, the hospitals trust had to subcontract more than 1,000 patients to other private and NHS facilities because it did not have the capacity or the notice to make arrangements. Some £1.9 million was found by the regional health authority out of "unrenewable resources" to meet the backlog of cases that had been waiting almost 12 months. There were 516 general surgery cases; 322 orthopaedic cases; and 278 urology cases. Operations were carried out in the private sector at premium rates by consultants who would have carried out the same operations within the NHS. I urge the Minister to investigate how it was possible for such a situation to occur.
Bradford hospitals trust has shut down its capacity to match its budget provision. The trust's chief executive raised concerns with my colleagues and me about the seriousness of the financial situation. In the contracting year 1994–95, the trust was required to carry out 76,500 finished consultant episodes from a budget of £80.5 million. In 1995–96, it has been requested to supply 79,500 FCEs for £82.1 million—an increase of £1.6 million for a further 3,000 operations. In effect, it is a 4 per cent. increase in requirement, but with an increase of only 2 per cent. in funds.

327
Needless to say, the health commission does not accept the figures and makes the case that the trust is the provider and that it must be competitive on its prices to win contracts. That would be understandable if we were talking about a business, but we are not. Nor are we comparing like with like. Bradford hospitals trust depends on Bradford health commission for more than 90 per cent. of its budget. The trust forecast that it is heading for a finance deficit this year of £5 million. It says that further financial pressures are unavoidable on issues that have been agreed by the Government—the cut in junior doctors' hours, and more medical education—but have not been budgeted for.
The only method of retrieving the shortfall is for further cuts to be made in an already beleaguered service. The trust maintains that it is cost-effective, low priced, and an efficient production unit. It points to several local and national indicators to prove the point. What is clear to all of us in Bradford who use, and depend on, our hospitals is that we cannot afford more cuts. Yet we discover that the new formula funding for the regional health authorities means that Bradford will receive £5 million less next year, on top of the £5 million shortfall for this year.
Taxis ferry patients across the city, because the trust operates on two major sites. X-rays and scanners are available only at one site. We need more money and more investment, not less money and further cuts. Staffing levels on the wards are the lowest in West Yorkshire. On most wards, 19 staff provide 24-hour cover seven days a week. On others, there are six nurses—three qualified from the Royal College of Nursing and three auxiliaries—to 51 patients. When there is absence through sickness, the staff have to go to the management to arrange cover instead of using agency nurses.
All training courses have been stopped until the end of the financial year as the training budget has been used up. Nurses and staff are not allowed time off to attend courses to develop their skills. They have to pay for the courses themselves and attend them outside working hours. Staff working on Christmas day had to pay for taxis to get to work because there was no public transport and when they applied for a refund they were told to deduct the amount of the bus fare. That is outrageous.
In 1994, a document was launched in Bradford outlining the strategy for health until 2000. It pointed out Bradford's medical requirements and all the agencies involved gave a commitment to make Bradford a healthy place with healthy people able to depend upon first-class health provision. If present trends continue, that will become a worthless piece of paper to put alongside the patients charter. We do not want more words; we want a health service that provides for us when we are in need.
The trust recognises that it has a problem. It forecasts increased waiting times and says that current contracts will mean that people will be on waiting lists for more than 12 months. It believes that a cost reduction programme will make matters worse, putting the trust at greater risk of complaints and litigation. Bradford people cannot afford that. I urge the Minister to investigate and put matters right. If he does not, the Government cannot continue to say that the health service is safe in their hands. This is not a matter of the numbers of patients being treated; it is a fundamental question of providing an effective, efficient and caring public service.
328
In 1991, the Bradford hospitals trust was launched as a flagship of the new approach to health provision. It saddens me to say that it is floundering and in danger of sinking. The casualties will be the decent people of our city, people who cannot afford to buy their way out through the private sector if they are in trouble.
It is a great privilege and responsibility to represent Bradford, South. I hope that the Minister will take the issues seriously and not respond by quoting statistics showing the throughput of operations. I hope that he will show a genuine desire to get to the heart of the issues and to put matters right.
Doctors, nurses and health workers in Bradford deserve better support. People in Bradford know what the problems are and they deserve better treatment. I hope that the Minister will investigate all the matters that I have raised and ensure that Bradford receives proper and appropriate health care.
1.44 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on securing the debate and allowing me a brief opportunity to participate.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health is new to his portfolio, but I am confident that the briefing material given to him before the debate will have said that concerns about the NHS in Bradford have been put to the House by different Members of Parliament representing the city during the past 10 years or so.
I do not want to be alarmist—what I have to say is substantiated by what my hon. Friend said—but the NHS in Bradford is in deep crisis and unless the Government intervene decisively, that crisis will deepen. Those who depend on the NHS in Bradford are clearly not receiving the quality of service to which they are entitled and all the prospects are that that quality of service will deteriorate unless decisive action is taken.
As the House has been told on numerous occasions, Bradford suffers from deep poverty. That poverty is endemic and breeds all sorts of health demands. Clearly, Bradford NHS is incapable of meeting those needs at present and, as time goes by, without the injection of additional funding, it will continue to be unable to meet those growing and important needs. We suffer particularly from high rates of heart disease. Thankfully, our infant mortality rates have improved substantially in recent years, but there is continuing concern about infant mortality and the health of children in our district.
As my hon. Friend said, the NHS in Bradford is grotesquely underfunded. That has been the case ever since the NHS trust was first established there. Public warnings were consistently given about that underfunding, which were reaffirmed by the Select Committee on Health which visited Bradford at that time. Those warnings were never heeded, but I appeal to the Minister to do so today and to take action.
The morale of nursing and medical staff is at an all-time low. There is gross understaffing. As my hon. Friend said, the nursing staff-patient ratio is not only below the regional average but way below the national average. Considerable burdens are imposed on staff, who experience great stress and there is unacceptable dependence on temporary or so-called bank or agency nursing staff.

329
There is also considerable anxiety about the need to increase the number of consultants, in comparison not only with Airedale but with the rest of Yorkshire. My hon. Friend rightly spoke about the language that we now hear so much of in the health service—for example, throughputs and activity rates. We are dealing not with supermarkets but with those who are desperately trying to provide the best quality of care and service in Bradford, as is the case throughout the rest of the country. That is not being delivered in Bradford today and the main reason for that is the underfunding.
As my hon. Friend has already said, it is no good the Minister saying, as he may well do, that the funding is adequate and that the matter is one for the trust and the health commission—once better known as the health authority. Despite the new name, the reality remains the same, and that is that there is serious underfunding, which is historical. Unless action is taken, the consequences of that underfunding will continue and there will be more unfortunate cases, such as that of Mr. Cranswick, which has illustrated the need for urgent action now.
Some particular incidents have caused considerable concern recently. My hon. Friend referred to the decision to spend nearly £2 million on reducing the number of those who have been on waiting lists for nearly a year which, as the Minister will have heard, has resulted in that money being spent primarily within the private sector. It is unacceptable that nearly £2 million of taxpayers' money should be spent within the private sector.
The absurdity of that is compounded because most of the operations were carried out by NHS consultants who should and would wish to carry out those operations within the NHS. That decision was politically driven. The Government clearly said that they wanted to reduce waiting lists and did not care how it was done. In Bradford, the result was that money that should have gone into the NHS went predominantly into the private sector.
I hope that the Minister will give us more than sympathy today. I hope that he will call urgently for information about the situation. If he agrees with the views expressed not only by me and by my hon. Friend today but continually by many others who are desperately concerned about health in Bradford, I hope that he will find a way of injecting substantial funds into the NHS in Bradford and do so urgently.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I congratulate him on securing time in the House to debate the important matter of health care in Bradford. I acknowledge, too, his long-standing concern and his local knowledge. I well understand his feelings following the sad death of Mr. Geoffrey Cranswick, his constituent. He made an eloquent plea not only on the general question of health care in Bradford but on the particular question of intensive care beds, which are a material factor. I also acknowledge what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said. He too has a great deal of knowledge about, and concern for, health matters in Bradford. I promise not to give too many statistics, but we must include a few facts in dealing with this case.
330
Before referring specifically to Bradford, let me say a little about the position in the country as a whole in order to put the matter in context. The number of available intensive care beds has increased by nearly 90 in the past four years. We recognise that the lack of intensive care provision has provoked criticism. It is sometimes claimed that the problem is due to a shortage of qualified nurses; retaining highly qualified nurses can be a problem, but—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed only last week in Health questions—we now have 1,000 more qualified nurses than we did in 1990. Indeed, the number of qualified general intensive care nurses increased by more than 18 per cent. between 1990 and 1994.
It must be stressed that intensive care is precisely that: it is a very intensive business. Between five and seven highly trained nurses are required to deal with one bed in an intensive care unit. That is one reason why we are encouraging the development of high dependency units, which can take some of the strain off intensive care provision.
In response to the claims of shortage in provision, the Department of Health commissioned a study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, led by Professor McPherson. His report, which was published last year, identified considerable variation in provision; it also found a significant number of inappropriate admissions. It must be recognised that what capacity we have must be used sensibly: it should not be misused in the handling of cases that do not necessarily justify intensive treatment. Following the publication of the McPherson report, a working group of medical and nursing professionals was formed to draw up guidelines for admission to, and discharge from, intensive care. It is expected to complete its work early this year.
Both the hon. Member for Bradford, South and the hon. Member for Bradford, West said that this should be a matter for the Government. In fact, the Government—or, rather, the professionals whom they have commissioned—are examining the whole business of intensive care, including intensive care in Bradford. Last year, we also asked local health authorities to review local intensive care provision in the light of Professor McPherson's report. We are also supporting the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre with a grant of £400,000. Both performance and outcome are being examined. I agree with both hon. Members, however, that we should consider not merely short-term but medium and long-term benefit.
Let me now deal with the position of local health commissions, and Bradford health commission in particular. It is the responsibility of district health commissions, or authorities, to use their resources to meet the health needs of their populations. The hon. Member for Bradford, South expressed the fear that resources for Bradford might be insufficient, but let us look at the facts. In 1995–96—the current financial year—Bradford health commission received over £200 million, an increase of £9.6 million in cash terms, including an increase of £1.6 million for development. Furthermore, in the next financial year, beginning in April, Bradford is to receive £210 million—another substantial increase in cash terms, including a real terms increase of £1 million. While the hon. Gentleman clearly believes that Bradford's health service is underfunded, the fact is that it is receiving substantial amounts each year in addition to what it already has.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The worries that we have expressed are not merely our personal worries; they have been substantiated by the hospital trust management, which says that it faces real shortfalls.
Mr. Horam: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the fact remains that we are increasing funds for Bradford in real terms.
Let me be more specific. One of the ways in which Bradford has benefited from the extra money is through improvements in its accident and emergency department. After Bradford health commission had completed its own review, the results of which were published last September, it was able to assist with A and E services at Bradford royal infirmary, which is part of Bradford Hospitals NHS trust. The commission also provided an extra £140,000 for A and E staffing. This year, the trust has increased the number of staff in its A and E department by one consultant, four senior house officers and eight nurses. It has invested a total of £420,000, and a new computer system has been installed.
The hon. Gentleman, however, is concerned about not just A and E but wider health matters. The trust has also appointed eight additional consultants, including three anaesthetists and a general surgeon. As recently as the end of 1994, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health opened a new wing at St Luke's hospital in Bradford, which is part of the trust. The development cost £25 million.
The hon. Gentleman raised the sad case of Mr. Geoffrey Cranswick. I shall not go into that tragic case at length, because it has already been dealt with exhaustively, and we probably agree about what happened. Following the case, however, Bradford health commission's chief executive visited the trust—I believe that he did so the day after the events with which we are dealing—to discuss the need for more intensive care beds. To that, extent prompt action was taken, as it should be in such cases.
As I explained earlier, the health commission's contract allows for the funding of five intensive care beds, so the recent difficulties are not related to funding. In this case, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, they were due to staff shortages. Two people were not available because of flu, and there were four more shortages because of the inability to attract properly trained nurses. That is a problem, but it does not relate specifically to funding.
Mr. Madden: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he has only a few more minutes in which to speak. May I ask, however, whether he has received any representations from either Bradford health commission or Bradford Hospitals NHS trust regarding the allocation of resources and the need to increase those resources?
Mr. Horam: No, I have not. What I have received is a report on the position. I looked into it after the hon. Gentleman raised the issue in an Adjournment debate.
332
I am assured that much joint work is now being done to bring about a better understanding of the pressures on the service in Bradford. That involves more co-operation between the commission and the trust—the specific point about which the hon. Gentleman complained.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the commission and the trust have been working together on a programme called "Making Bradford Better". He did not mention it, but I am sure that he knows of it. The project evolved from joint discussions and work, and is intended to effect early improvements in specific patient services. Specific programmes include dealing with emergency admissions and the Bradford eye service. Whatever may have obtained in the past, the relationship and level of understanding between the commission and the trust are improving. I acknowledge that great effort is needed to ensure the continuation of that joint work, which clearly benefits Bradford.
On the occasion in question, only four intensive care beds were in service. There should have been five, and it is clearly vital for that fifth bed to be returned to service as soon as possible. It is accepted, however, that five beds are not enough to serve the 500,000 people who live in the Bradford area. Six beds should be available as early as possible, and the commission and the trust assure me that every effort will be made to achieve that.
I mentioned high dependency beds, which can take the pressure off intensive care beds. There are plans to fund an additional four such beds.
The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West may never accept that Bradford has enough money, and I would probably feel the same if I were in their shoes, but funds have been increased substantially. Moreover, as far as I am aware, co-operation between the trust and the commission is becoming better and better. Such co-operation must exist if the problems are to be solved. Specific attention is being paid to the question of intensive care and high dependency. I hope that all those factors will lead to an increase in Bradford's health provision, and I join both hon. Members in paying tribute to the work done by the professionals.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

BILL PRESENTED
  EDINBURGH ASSAY OFFICE
  Mr. Secretary Forsyth presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Assay Office (to be presented under section 7 of the Act): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    School Discipline
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to help schools enforce firm discipline; and if she will make a statement. [9415]
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to help schools enforce firm discipline. [9420]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Last September, my right hon. Friend announced a range of initiatives to help schools combat the problem of disruptive pupils. They build on guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline sent in May 1994 to all schools, as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack. She has also asked the consultative group on school standards for advice on what else can be done to help schools maintain and improve discipline.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and welcome the additional resources provided by the Government to help schools deal with disruptive pupils, but does he agree that better teacher training in classroom management would be one way in which to help improve discipline in the classroom?
    Mr. Squire: I agree with my hon. Friend who, as a former teacher, speaks with considerable authority. Initial teacher training should equip all new teachers with the skills to create and maintain a disciplined environment in the class. It is also fair to say that the increased emphasis that we are placing on school-based teacher training will assist in that respect. Separately, funding is available for training for existing teachers so that they also may improve their skills.
    Mr. Arnold: I agree that teachers are the key to discipline, but they can be effective only if they receive proper back-up from local education authorities. As we well know, too many local education authorities, especially Labour-controlled ones, can be categorised as being soft on indiscipline and soft on the sources of indiscipline—basically, on badly behaved pupils. The Government were right to set up pupil resettlement units—the well-known sin bins—but bearing it in mind that their policies are implemented by the same Labour education authorities that are soft on indiscipline, what checks are made on those sin bins to ensure that they have tough discipline and get these yobs right?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a significant point. There is no question but that we must ensure that the vast majority of school pupils are able to be educated in a proper and ordered environment. That will sometimes mean the exclusion of disruptive elements, but it is not sufficient that those elements are then left to drift—they must be educated too. The Office for Standards in Education inspection of the first 12 pupil
    334
    resettlement units was revealing and worrying. From this September, it will inspect all 300 pupil resettlement units with a view to ensuring that standards are high enough.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Would not providing real jobs for young school leavers help?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has not considered the unemployment figures for the past three years. The figures for unemployment and for the proportion of people employed in this country are among the best, if not the best, in Europe. Rather, the problem is that some of our pupils suffer from a poverty of expectation, which goes back to the quality of teaching.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister mentioned exclusions. Given the threefold increase in exclusions in the past three years, will he explain why his Department could not even be bothered to send a representative to the recent Runnymead Trust seminar, at which Sir Paul Condon was reported to have said that the majority of street criminals in London were excluded from school?
    Mr. Squire: I do not know about the seminar to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I know beyond argument that the Government are deadly serious about equipping teachers, schools and local education authorities with the full range of powers they need to cope with indiscipline in schools. The hon. Gentleman mentioned permanent exclusions. We have made it clear that that is a last resort, not a first resort. In September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out a number of ways in which we are seeking, through discussion—particularly with the teaching unions—to extend the scope of alternatives open to schools.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are currently educated in grammar schools. [9416]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): In January 1995, approximately 123,000 pupils were being taught in maintained grammar schools in England.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that grammar schools provide not only an excellent education but a real choice for parents, particularly in inner-city areas? Does she also agree that parents who are fortunate enough to be able to send their children to such schools should have the courage to fight for the survival of grammar schools rather than to support policies that would ensure their destruction?
    Mrs. Shephard: We are in favour of selection. Selective schools have a distinguished record of providing a high standard of education and increased choice, which many parents want for their children. Indeed, such parents are emerging in increasing numbers from the Opposition Benches. The events of the past few days have revealed that the Labour party's policy on choice, diversity and selection is a basic contradiction at the heart of its

    335
    thinking—choice and diversity for some, but policy intentions to remove choice, diversity and opportunity for selection from everyone else.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that in Northern Ireland we have managed to maintain a high standard of education for our children by maintaining a selective system, but that in good secondary schools and comprehensive schools—in which teachers are dedicated and committed and pupils are streamed and educated according to their age and ability—youngsters achieve as much as they do in grammar schools?
    Mrs. Shephard: What is important is that parents should have a range of schools from which to choose: selective, non-selective, grant-maintained, specialist schools, city technology colleges and, of course, access to the independent sector through the assisted places scheme. Sadly, such variety would be crushed out of existence by the Labour party's policies, should it ever have the chance to put those policies into practice.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: No one doubts the excellent record of many grammar schools in this country and the contributions they have made to many children's education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is perhaps more important than the label which is put on a school—the name it is given—is what happens within it? Does she agree that those schools that are targeting the real needs of pupils will achieve the best for them and provide parents with the diversity and choice that is central to the Conservative party's attitude and approach to education?
    Mrs. Shephard: There is no doubt that all schools are capable of providing an excellent education and good results. Schools, of course, depend very much on the quality of the head and teachers in them. That is why we are introducing a qualification for head teachers. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that a range of schools from which to choose, and the very existence of choice, help to drive up standards.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that grammar schools are not all that they are cracked up to be? I went to one and they taught me Latin—amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant. They also taught me the Archimedes principle—when a body is weighed in air and then in a fluid, the upthrust or apparent loss in weight is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. But none of that equipped me for life. I went down a coal mine, which is where I got my real education. Do not believe all that rubbish about selectivity. Let us give every child in Bolsover and the rest of Britain the chance to do as well as one another.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is not part of the Government's policy to impose on our education system the dead hand of uniformity, as the Labour party would seek to do. The hon. Gentleman is the most wonderful advertisement for the selective system. He should be used in publicity.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: In the 1960s, I was a physics teacher at Manchester grammar school, teaching the Archimedes principle, and I am impressed by the knowledge of the hon. Member for Bolsover
    336
    (Mr. Skinner) on that subject. Does my right hon. Friend recall those direct grant selective grammar schools which provided a good education for people of all backgrounds in Manchester and throughout the country? Does she also recall that it was a Labour Government who pushed those schools out of the state system and thereby took away the opportunities for young people?
    Mrs. Shephard: It was indeed the Labour party which, in the 1960s and 1970s, sought to use education as a tool for social engineering. If we read the lips of Opposition Members, see that they continue to want to do that. Did not a Labour predecessor of mine say that he would not rest until he had got rid of every blank grammar school in the country?
    Ms Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State's comments on this issue are interesting. If the Conservatives think that selective grammar schools are so good, why did Baroness Thatcher close so many and why has the Secretary of State no plans to open more?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I have already said a number of times, we are in favour of selection because we believe in diversity and choice for parents, as do some Opposition Members, particularly on the Labour Front Bench. As the hon. Lady knows, we are currently consulting on proposals to broaden selection. Although that has not been received with three cheers by all Opposition Members, I am sure that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) would welcome it. Given the welcome boost to the issue provided by Labour Members' activities, we shall consider what further developments might arise from that consultation exercise.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comment in the "Our View" column of Monday night's Lancashire Evening Post, which said:
    "Many parents still believe we are paying a high price for…comprehensive education."?
    Does not the fact that so many people apply to the two grammar schools in my constituency confirm that view?
    Mrs. Shephard: Indeed. As I said, it is not part of the Government's policy to impose the dead hand of uniform comprehensive education across the country. We need choice and diversity, and selective schools are an important part of that.

    Temporary Employment
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of people currently in temporary positions because they cannot find a permanent job. [9417]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Around 650,000.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the Courage brewery in my constituency closes, with a loss of 200 jobs, only part-time insecure jobs will be on offer to those workers—and not to many of them? Has she any idea how devastating it is for people who

    337
    want to make a stake in society by buying a house or engaging in social activities when they have only temporary, low-paid work? What will she do about it?
    Mrs. Shephard: Of course I agree that unemployment is a very unpleasant experience, but two thirds of all those who become unemployed find work within six months. I hope that the hon. Lady's constituents will find some comfort in the fact that the Employment Service has placed a record 2 million unemployed people in work this year.
    I must correct the hon. Lady's apparent belief that there is a problem with temporary or part-time jobs. In 1994, only 6.3 per cent. of the work force were in temporary work, compared with more than 10 per cent. in France and Germany and a massive 33.6 per cent. in Spain. In case the hon. Lady has missed the connection, I should point out that socialist Spain—where the proportion is a massive one third—embraces both the social chapter and the national minimum wage. I believe that I am right in thinking that the Labour party wants to subject the people of this country to both of those policies.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have some special knowledge of the employment situation in France, as my daughter has lived there since her marriage? Is she aware that unemployment among the under-25s in France has now reached the appalling figure of 27.3 per cent.? Is she further aware that, to avoid the rigours of the national minimum wage, it has become normal for employers to offer young people unpaid work—the so-called "stage"—for three or even six months, and the expectation of a chance of getting a paid job at the end of that period is held out to them? Is not that a scandal? Can we expect a similar situation in this country if we embrace the social chapter?
    Mrs. Shephard: There is clearly a direct correlation between France's embracing a national minimum wage and its regrettably high rate of youth unemployment. Youth unemployment in this country is below that in Spain, Finland, Ireland, Italy, France, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Portugal. I think that that speaks for itself.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in 1994, the unemployment rate among graduates six months after graduating was 10 per cent.? They were thereby forced to look for any kind of job—particularly temporary jobs—to try to get along. Does she agree that that is a complete waste of their time and of the taxpayers' money invested in them? Does she have any suggestions or helpful comments for people in that situation?
    Mrs. Shephard: The employment rate among graduates in this country is very much higher than that in the European Union, and unemployment among graduates here has halved in the past year. We do not want anyone to be unemployed, but unemployment is falling further and faster in this country than in any of our major competitor countries in the EU.

    Older Workers
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision is being made for the employment of older workers. [9418]
    Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made in the campaign for older workers. [9422]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The Government's economic and labour market policies have led to an increase in employment of 600,000 over the last two and a half years. Thirty-nine per cent. of those jobs have been filled by people aged 50 and above.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that older people very often make reliable, experienced and knowledgeable workers? Is not it a tragedy that so many of them are thrown on the scrap heap when they can be most productive? Is there any evidence to suggest that the attitude of employers is shifting towards older workers? Are the Government doing anything to ensure that the attitude does shift?
    Mrs. Gillan: The Government are doing something. Our older workers campaign continues apace, particularly with the recent publication of the third booklet in the series entitled "Age Works". It makes no economic or business sense to exclude people because of their age, and many companies—such as B and Q and the Nationwide building society—are now welcoming older workers and older job applicants. I received a letter from a recruitment consultant this week, who wrote:
    "We currently have temporary staff in their 50's and 60's working for us. They are reliable and conscientious and as an agency we have no hesitation in promoting the mature worker".
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has reported considerable and welcome progress to the House, but would she comment on international examples of apparently succesful legislation to ban age discrimination in employment procedures?
    Mrs. Gillan: My Department has carried out a study of approximately 20 countries, including the United States where such legislation exists, and no conclusive evidence suggested that it helped older workers when they tried to find a job. I have found that persuasion and our campaign is genuinely working. Richard Worsley, the director of the Carnegie Third Age programme, wrote just this month in People Management:
    "In 1995 I surveyed 500 employers in the United Kingdom about their advertising policies. Nearly 90 per cent. of them replied that they do not or will not use age limits in recruitment advertisements."
    That magazine has made it clear that, from January, it will no longer accept any recruitment advertisements that exclude some applicants purely on the ground of their age.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that no progress has been made in many former coal-mining areas, such as my constituency, where 50 per cent. of over-50-year-old men are economically inactive? That is a staggering figure and has contributed to the hopelessness and despair that not only the young, but many middle-aged and older workers, feel. The Government's policies are, more and more, driving them to despair. What is the Minister going to do about that?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am very sad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has constituents who feel depressed and

    339
    are unable to get a job. All I can say is that, from the summer of 1994 to the summer of 1995, employment for the over-45s grew by 1.7 per cent. compared with 0.9 per cent. for the remainder of the work force. I very much hope that his constituents find jobs in the near future.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the Minister's comments, why have the Government decided not to make student loans available to the over-50s?
    Mrs. Gillan: Our policy is well known—[HON MEMBERS: "What is it?] I am concerned to get older workers into jobs. The campaign that is being conducted by the Government is proving its success time after time.
    Mr. Rowe: I am pleased to hear about the progress that my hon. Friend has made. She will be as aware as anyone that a man of 50 has the expectation of a further 36 years of life during which he may have low pension expectations. Has she plans to improve the spread of the use of national vocational qualifications to enable older people to validate the considerable experience of life that they have so far gained?
    Mrs. Gillan: Opportunities should exist irrespective of age. Everyone with the ability and desire to participate in the labour market should be encouraged to do so for as long as they wish, regardless of age.

    Church Schools
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from Church bodies on her proposals for fast-track opt-out for Church schools. [9419]
    Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 69 representations from Church bodies on the Department's consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools. A summary of responses has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Jones: Contrary to the impression that the Minister seeks to give, is not it true that Church schools have overwhelmingly rejected proposals for grant-maintained status? What lessons have the Government learnt from that? Surely that rejection will speed up the rejection of grant-maintained status across the country.
    Mr. Squire: The inference to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is rather strange. He seems to suggest that, via a press release from the Government, attempts have been made to hide the result of the consultation. We have always made it clear, as we did in the Chamber two days ago, that we would consult—the Prime Minister made that clear in his speech in September. We listened to the results of that consultation and responded. The difference between the Labour party and the Government is that, too often, the Labour party is not prepared to consult, or even to listen, when the majority of people tell it that they like selective education.
    Mr. Couchman: Has my hon. Friend had any representations from the Bishop of Southwark suggesting
    340
    that a Church school in Southwark should be opted out to replace St. Olave's so that the children of middle-class parents may be spared a 30-mile round trip to Orpington?
    Mr. Squire: While I cannot speak for the specific source mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, the obvious lesson from the events of the past few days for any voluntary-aided—let alone selective—school that has not yet opted out is to get going.

    Temporary Employment
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the proportion of employees currently in temporary employment. [9421]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Latest figures from the labour force survey indicate that about 7.5 per cent. of employees are in some form of temporary employment.
    Ms Anderson: Is the Minister aware that, according to the latest labour force survey, the number of people who are in temporary jobs because they said that they could not find permanent jobs has increased by 140 per cent. over the past five years? Can the Minister explain that increase?
    Mr. Forth: The number in temporary employment fluctuates, depending on economic circumstances and the development of the labour market. The hon. Lady seems to have missed the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made earlier. If one regards temporary work as being undesirable—I in no way agree with that view; temporary work has its place in the economy—Britain has a much lower number, and proportion, of workers in temporary employment than nearly all of our major continental partners, especially those of a socialist bent who are imposing social chapter conditions and statutory minimum wages on their employees. The more restrictions one seeks to place on the labour market, the more likely there is to be a higher number of temporary workers. I hope that the hon. Lady will convey that fact to her Front-Bench colleagues.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend include in his statistics of those in temporary employment the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—in view of the remark of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that, if she has not been fired between now and later in the year, she will be voted out of the shadow Cabinet? If she loses her job, does my hon. Friend recommend that she become a teacher in a grammar school or that she go down t'pit, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bolsover?
    Mr. Forth: Perhaps I should arrange for a form from the next labour force survey to be sent to the hon. Lady so that we can be sure that her status is clear.
    Mr. Meacher: Does the Minister think it right and fair that, generally, temporary workers do not get sick pay or premium payments for working overtime or shifts, are excluded from occupational pensions and are paid less than full-time staff for doing the same work? I have with

    341
    me examples such as a double-glazing factory worker from north Wales on £1.75 an hour, a trainee hairdresser in Oldham on £40 a week who has to pay £5 a week in bus fares and lunch money and an advertisement from a jobcentre in Chorley for a landscape gardener for just £1 an hour. Is it not disgusting that Tory economics favour six-figure, fat cat executive share options on the back of the temporary worker sweatshop economy?
    Mr. Forth: I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he listens to our replies before he reads out his prepared soundbites. If, as he seems to be, he is saying that temporary employment is undesirable and disastrous, he should examine his party's policy more closely and explain to the electorate and the work force why the policies that he seeks to impose would almost inevitably greatly increase the number of temporary employees to the sort of figure that is found in socialist Spain. When he has an explanation for that, he should come back to the House and give it.

    Commuters
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies she has made of the average daily number of workers commuting into travel-to-work areas with a higher than average level of unemployment. [9423]
    Mr. Forth: The Department has not made any such studies.
    Mr. Field: A number of commuters travel from the mainland to the Isle of Wight every day despite the relatively high unemployment on the Isle of Wight. Will my hon. Friend consider including the island in a study at some future date to discover why the island's resident population are not taking the jobs that are filled by commuters from the mainland?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. It is undeniable that a large number of people are prepared to travel extraordinary distances—for example, from Southwark to Bromley—to improve their family circumstances. I have even heard of family members travelling from Islington to Hammersmith. That illustrates that the labour market is a free market, and we encourage people to move to wherever they can better themselves.
    As for my hon. Friend's constituency, the only figures that I have been able to find show that local council planners in his authority estimate that, each day, 1,000 people travel off his island to work and about 500 people travel on to the island. There is a healthy awareness in the locality of my hon. Friend's constituency of the availability of jobs. My hon. Friend asked an interesting question and I shall consider his proposal as a prospective project for my Department's research budget next year.
    Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government have introduced a travel-to-interview scheme for travel-to-work areas. Under the scheme, unemployed workers are entitled to subsidies to help with the costs of travelling to interviews. Owing to the scheme's mismanagement, 88,000 people have been refused access to that resource. As we speak, a young gentleman called Chris Owen is
    342
    walking the 160 miles from Gwent to London for a job interview tomorrow. The Minister spent £74 million tarting up his headquarters with new carpets, curtains, tables and chairs, but he has refused the young man £11 to come to a job interview in London. Will the Minister review his decision, pay the £11 and, as a sign of contrition, buy the chap a new pair of shoes to compensate for the 160 miles that he has already walked? Is it not a disgrace that the Government can cause someone to lose a job simply by refusing the £11 bus fare for an interview?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman displays his usual ignorance of the rules of the schemes that we introduce to help people who are out of work. Opposition Members—and certainly the hon. Gentleman—do not understand that each scheme and programme to help people who are out of work has to have its rules. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not have it otherwise, because taxpayers' money could be misdirected. It is for individuals and experts in the Employment Service to find the best way to help each individual. If someone wants to dramatise his position by doing what the hon. Gentleman has described, that is a matter for the individual involved. I will not be accused, and I will certainly not have the Employment Service accused, of not doing everything possible to help people in reasonable circumstances to return to work. Our track record on that is extraordinarily good.

    Expenditure (Somerset)
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional resources will be provided for education in Somerset in 1995–96. [9424]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Somerset's education standard spending assessment increased by £3.5 million in 1995–96 and is set to rise by £7.4 million or 5.1 per cent. in 1996–97.
    Mr. Robinson: Does my hon. Friend share the outrage of parents, teachers and governors in Somerset and my constituency at the fact that the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council is thinking of not passing on up to £3 million of that £7.4 million to schools in Somerset? Is that not particularly disappointing given the excellent series of reports that the Office for Standards in Education has recently issued that show the quality of the schools in my constituency?
    Mr. Squire: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He will remember—as I suspect do all my hon. Friends—that throughout the past year the Liberal Democrats have been accusing the Government of underspending on education. Now, as my hon. Friend rightly said, as a result of the settlement announced, there is ample opportunity in Somerset for the Liberal Democrat council to spend that money on education. If it does not do so, to use a word in common usage at present, it will be being hypocritical.
    Mr. Don Foster: Further to the reply that the Minister has just given, will he confirm to the House

    343
    that the capping limit on Somerset is such that it may raise its cash limit by only 3.1 per cent.? Will the Minister confirm that Somerset has received only 20 per cent. of its request for capital allocation? Will the Minister confirm that service delivery increases in Somerset—through rising pupil numbers, inflationary prices and changes in legislation alone—will cost £10 million? Will the Minister confirm that Somerset is a prime example of why the report by the Tory-dominated Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee said of education spending that the Chancellor's Budget did not live up to the claims that he was making in it?
    Mr. Squire: The total increase in spending that Somerset can make next year is about £8.5 million—the type of figure for all services that most local education authorities would be delighted to receive. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a restricted document has fallen into public ownership. I am a little unclear whether his contribution today should be described as naive, woolly or barmy—all words used in the document—but I would say to him that it is right and proper for the local education authority in Somerset to be able to spend that money overwhelmingly on education, and it has the means to do so.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend support the efforts made by Conservative Members and Conservative county councillors in Somerset to ensure that all the money budgeted for education this year goes to schools and is not retained by county hall? Apart from the resource argument, will he acknowledge that there must be constant pressure to improve teaching methods and standards in schools, which is why all Conservative Members welcome the motives of, and commend the example shown by, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)?
    Mr. Squire: I agree with both the main points made by my hon. Friend. As he well knows, the Government are committed to raising standards in all our schools—including those in inner cities, which appear to be so unpopular at present among Opposition Members.

    Examination Results
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what conclusions she has drawn from the 1995 A-level and GCSE examination results; and if she will make a statement. [9425]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): 1995 was another year of which teachers and candidates can be justly proud. The GCSE and GCE results in 1995 were among the best ever achieved.
    Sir David Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that A-level and GCSE results will continue to improve as long as schools maintain a vigorous policy of setting and streaming, subject by subject?
    Mr. Paice: I certainly hope and believe that there will be a continued improvement, as there has been for many years, in the success rates at GCSE and A-level examinations. As for setting and streaming, obviously the
    344
    structure of their teaching mechanisms is a matter for teachers and governors to decide, but I suggest that any means of grouping pupils according to ability or aptitude that enables teachers to focus their efforts more effectively must lead to better results for everyone concerned.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Minister confirm that, for the first time for very many years, the percentage of 16-year-olds staying on in full-time education has decreased this year? How on earth are we to attain the targets for achievement among 18-year-olds—the targets that the Government have set—if we are slipping back at this stage?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand what targets are, because they do not specifically relate to school-achieved qualifications. For example, the target at ages 18 and 19 relates to qualifications equivalent to NVQ3, and those qualifications may be an NVQ gained partly at work or partly at college, or A-levels. There is a range of ways in which those qualifications may be achieved. To equate staying-on rates with the ability to meet our targets is a complete misunderstanding of what targets are all about.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend consider the examination results in those 11 schools—schools most of which I know well, and have known for 30 years—that are between the home of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and St. Olave's school in Orpington? Will he not find—I can assure him that he will—that more money is being spent on those schools now by the Government than was ever spent on them previously; that the Labour Inner London education authority and its predecessor, the London county council, for both of which organisations I have worked, also spent large sums on those schools; and that the present Lambeth and Southwark councils are also spending unprecedented sums on the schools?
    It cannot be said that those schools are underfunded. It cannot be said that they do not have the opportunity to achieve properly. If local parents would send their children to those schools, as they expect other parents to do in other areas, the schools would have a better chance.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend has studied the statistics in great depth and I would not dream of dissenting from them. As he reminded the House, secondary level education in Southwark is better funded than ever before by this Government and, more important, it is better funded than in many other local education authorities in the area. More money is spent per secondary pupil in Southwark than is spent in Barking, Brent, Bexley or, yes, Bromley. If we look further afield, we will see that Southwark spends £400 more per pupil than Bradford.
    The important point is the way in which that money is used to maximum effect in the teaching of our young people. It is no coincidence that some of the authorities with the worse performance record are led by Labour, and have been for decades.

    Parental Choice
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new measure the Government will be taking to extend parental choice in education. [9426]
    Mrs. Gillan: Parental choice is being extended in many ways: by increasing the number of assisted places available in independent schools, by the continued expansion of the grant-maintained sector, by city technology colleges, by enabling more schools to become specialist technology and language colleges and by giving more schools and local education authorities more flexibility over their admission arrangements.
    Mr. O'Hara: If the Government are so proud of the so-called parental choice that is offered in the state education system, why do so many Conservative Members commit their children to the private sector? Is it because they do not have the courage to commit their children to the lottery of choice and opportunity over which they preside in the state education system?
    Mrs. Gillan: I was pleased to see that the question was not withdrawn, unlike a question in the other place earlier this week. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong and I shall give him an example from the Government Front Bench. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), has both his children in the comprehensive school system.
    Mr. Pawsey: What action does my hon. Friend intend to take to protect hon. Members who exercise their right to decide to which school they will send their children? In addition, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Labour Members on the courage that they have displayed in opting for selection and in sending their children to grammar schools?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that all hon. Members should be able to choose where they send their children, and several Labour Front Benchers have made an excellent choice of school for their children. However, we must remember that, under Opposition policy, they would not have that choice.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister confirm for the House and the country that last year the number of parents who failed to get their first preference for their children increased by more than 100 per cent, but, even so, more than four out of every five parents secured their first preference? Does that not compare very favourably with a selective system, which excluded four out of every five parents from their first preference? Is it not the comprehensive system, which allows parents to exercise their preference, that offers real choice and diversity in this country? It does not offer what the Secretary of State described earlier this afternoon as the "dead hand" of comprehensive education.
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman knows that it has never been possible to guarantee every parent a place for his or her child at a preferred school. Some schools have been oversubscribed for many years because they are so good and so popular. The hon. Gentleman should examine the dead hand of his policies. Labour would end grant-maintained status, abolish the option of self-government for schools, weaken the autonomy of Church schools and of their governors, abolish assisted places, and end selection. What choice would that give the parents of this country?

    Unemployment
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current figure for unemployment (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Union countries. [9427]
    Mr. Forth: On the International Labour Organisation measure, unemployment in the UK in November 1995 was 8.1 per cent.—lower than in any other major European country and well below the European Union average of 10.6 per cent.
    Sir Roger Moate: Those figures show again that Conservative policies are working in making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe and bringing unemployment down at a time when it is rising fast in Germany and France. Would not UK unemployment rocket even to the level in socialist Spain if Labour was ever in a position to sign up this country to the social chapter, impose a minimum wage and give in to every inflationary wage demand from its union paymasters?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People are becoming daily more aware of the comparison that can be made between this country's success in establishing an enterprise economy, attracting inward investment, encouraging entrepreneurship and new businesses and reducing the unemployment rate for 28 successive months, and the policies of our continental partners and competitors on the mainland—who are experiencing rising unemployment because they have shackled their economies with the social chapter, statutory minimum wage and all the other restrictions that Labour would seek to impose on our economy. That comparison is well understood by people throughout the country.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that it is not a good Government record to claim that they have reduced unemployment to the level that they have, when so many people in temporary or part-time jobs want full-time jobs? They are working in low-pay and, in many cases, poverty-pay jobs that are an absolute disgrace for Britain in 1996.
    Mr. Forth: I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be in the Chamber for earlier questions. We have tried to get it across to Labour Members—unsuccessfully so far—that temporary work accounts for a much lower proportion of our work force than in most continental countries. The hon. Gentleman may regard temporary work as some sort of evil, but his party will create the conditions to increase temporary work rather than the other way around. As to the other factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it should be understood by Labour Members that the vast majority of people who work part time do so from choice as a result of their individual circumstances. We encourage individual choice, but obviously Labour Members do not.

    School Security
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve security arrangements for primary and secondary schools. [9429]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Following the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, my right hon. Friend has established a high-level working group to advise urgently on what more should be done to improve security in and around schools.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling death of Philip Lawrence is a symptom of the wider problem of indiscipline in the classroom? What hope can he give the House that the Government are prepared to take the measures necessary to ensure that the 5 per cent. of pupils who are disruptive and unruly will not in future be allowed to disrupt the education of the 95 per cent. of pupils who want to learn?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend draws attention to a subject that the House was discussing earlier. I reaffirm that the Government are utterly committed to all teachers and schools having a full range of measures open to them for tackling indiscipline. We are well aware of the urgency of the matter. The high-level group is discussing practical measures to improve school security, including updating and reissuing the Department's guidance on school premises.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that large-scale temporary classrooms and crumbling old schools present an attractive target to vandals and criminals? Will he confirm that there are a large number of temporary classrooms and crumbling old schools in Bradford? Does he understand why we were gobsmacked when, in the latest capital allocations, Bradford received just £4 million of the more than £40 million requested to deal with the problem? Instead of denigrating Bradford children and their examination results as the Minister did again today, when will the Government give Bradford the resources to ensure that all our children are given the most decent start in life and the best facilities possible to maximise their performance?
    Mr. Squire: As the hon. Member well knows, the capital allocation formula is a universal one that is applied to all authorities, and the priorities were drawn up more than 10 years ago. Bradford is no more or less disadvantaged than any other authority. If the implication at the heart of his question is that in some way the state of a building is responsible for indiscipline or bad behaviour, I beg to disagree. There are clearly several causes, including a need for greater parental control and involvement, and—in some places—a need for greater teacher skills. I made reference earlier to the efforts that the Government are making, in partnership with local education authorities and the Teacher Training Agency, to ensure that those skills are more widely practised.
    Mr. Atkins: Will my hon. Friend examine the security arrangements and ancillary matters at Lostock Hall high school in my constituency? Labour county councillors and Labour activists are seeking to frustrate the wishes of the parents in the ballot on grant-maintained status that is being held at the school this week. Such are the antics that extreme disquiet has been expressed by parents and governors alike. Will my hon. Friend invite the Labour party to desist from involving its local members politically in what should be an educational decision that will affect the future of the children at that school and their parents?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment on the specific example that he has given,
    348
    especially as the ballot is in progress. I can say that, sadly, what he has described, if it is happening, is only too reminiscent of what colleagues have reported when either Labour or Liberal Democrat councillors seek to frustrate and disrupt a ballot on grant-maintained status. It is for that reason, if no other, that any comments from Opposition Members that they are truly and deeply supportive of GM schools must be dismissed as garbage.

    School Funding (Nottingham)
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what capital funding allocations have been made to local education authority schools in Nottingham for 1996–97. [9430]
    Mrs. Gillan: The annual capital guidelines for capital work in schools in Nottinghamshire local education authority in 1996–97 are £2.811 million.
    Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister explain to parents in Nottingham if there is any fairness in a system that makes available on average £5,000 in capital allocations to a local authority school, compared with £250,000 in capital allocations to grant-maintained schools? Will she also explain fairness in a system that made available four times the amount of capital allocations to the city technology college than to all the Nottinghamshire schools combined? Is that not an example of a Government committed, if not to capital punishment, to capital programme punishment of the state education system?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer to his question. Capital funding comparisons on the basis of central Government support alone are misleading. Local education authorities have access to capital receipts and revenue moneys, while GM schools are almost entirely dependent on Government grants. It is for the local education authority to decide what proportion of its capital spending is directed towards schools in Nottingham and whether to supplement borrowing sanctioned by its ACG from other sources, including capital receipts and revenue budget.
    I suggest that, as the Labour party has controlled the county council for 14 years, perhaps the hon. Member should address his questions to his own party members.

    Unemployment
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to tackle unemployment among those over 45 years old. [9431]
    Mr. Paice: We intend to continue the successful economic and labour market policies which, together with the campaigns to which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), referred, have reduced unemployment for that group by 21 per cent. in the past two years.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous that people over the age of 45 should feel that they have been thrown on the scrap heap? Does he also agree that there is age discrimination in the workplace? If

    349
    he is not prepared to introduce legislation to resolve that, what evidence does he have that the voluntary scheme is working?
    Mr. Paice: I entirely agree that discrimination on the ground of age is unjustified and unfair. There is ample evidence, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, that many businesses now recognise the greater skills and greater commitment—among other attributes—that older workers can provide. We have been running a number of campaigns, to which my colleague referred earlier, and we are conducting an evaluation process to discover the success of those campaigns and to establish the attitude of employers.
    I believe that the vast majority of employers—but not all of them—are beginning to recognise that older workers represent a tremendous resource which they ought to be tapping, to provide their future skills needs.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the best way to help the over-45s who are unemployed—or indeed anyone who is unemployed—is to create the right economic climate for industry? The country to which we have all looked in the past as a superb example of this, Germany, is now finding out that the minimum wage and the social chapter are catastrophes. Unemployment in Germany is rising beyond 4 million, and it is exporting manufacturing capacity abroad, is it not, faster than any other European country?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The real way to deal with unemployment and job-search difficulties for any age group is to have real growth in employment created by the economy. That is what has been happening over the past few years under this Government and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it is not happening in a number of European countries.
    My hon. Friend rightly reminds us of Germany. Only a week or so ago, I met some German industrialists who were bemoaning Germany's situation and the imposts of taxation and of regulation of their labour market—and the increasing unemployment that they are causing. It means that they are being forced to look abroad to continue investing. I am delighted to say that these particular industrialists were investing in my constituency, but they would usually prefer to invest in Germany. They do not do so because of the imposts of the social chapter, the minimum wage and the sort of regulation that we would have again if the Labour party was ever given the chance to implement its policies.

    School Admissions
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she undertook before proposing to amend school admission arrangements. [9432]
    Mrs. Gillan: The consultation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for giving schools and local education authorities more flexibility over school admissions does not finish until 22 February.
    Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that answer. Can the Minister explain to those of us who are serious about
    350
    extending and exercising parental choice how a proposal to increase schools' ability to choose children and reduce parents' ability to choose schools contributes to parental choice? In particular, how does it do so when combined with the proposal to withdraw the right of the parents of children in voluntary-aided schools to ballot on those schools' futures?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am very pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's education policies so robustly by sending his children to selective schools. I am delighted that he has made the right choice as a parent.
    At present, all schools can select 10 per cent. of their intake; our consultation is looking at increasing that to 15 per cent., thereby providing more choice and diversity in the education system.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the impact on social cohesion of the Government's policies on parental choice? Is she aware of the conflict to which this can give rise between middle-class and working-class parents—for instance, in the Labour party, in which it is largely the middle-class Blair glitterati who have chosen to send their children to grant-maintained schools? What can we do to improve the consciousness of people like the deputy leader of the Labour party concerning the benefits that the policy can bring about for working-class parents of working-class children?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had much publicity over the past few days, as a result of Opposition Members, on the choice in education that is provided by the Government, and that will bring it forward. I do not understand why Opposition Members oppose the choice that we put into the education system—for example, assisted places, the very existence of which allows a wider socio-economic spread of children within the independent sector. The Conservative party provides real choice in the education system for all parents.

    Cycling
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to put cycling and cycling proficiency on the curriculum of primary schools. [9433]
    Mr. Paice: Schools are free to offer lessons in cycling and cycling proficiency, but the Government have no plans to include cycling in the national curriculum.
    Mr. Robathan: When, Madam Speaker, you and I were at school—not so long ago in your case—a great many children cycled to school, and as a result there was much less congestion on our roads in the mornings and afternoons. Does my hon. Friend agree with hiscolleagues in the Department of Transport that we should encourage cycling and discourage congestion? Does he agree with his friends at the Department of Health that we should discourage child obesity and encourage healthy child activities, such as cycling? Does he agree with his colleagues at the Department of the Environment that we should decrease pollution and vehicle emissions? If so, will he also make it his Department's policy to encourage

    351
    schools to make cycling facilities available to encourage cycling to and from school? Does he further agree that it is a long way to cycle from Peckham to Bromley or from Islington to the Oratory school?
    Mr. Paice: I am sure that when my hon. Friend was at school there were a lot more cycles and a lot more cycle sheds, behind which he no doubt learnt something. What
    352
    the Government have done is to slim down the national curriculum, as a result of requests from teachers, to give teachers far more flexibility in how they organise their school days. We would like them to use that flexibility as they think most appropriate. Clearly, the opportunity for young people to learn about cycling and to take cycling proficiency tests would be one of the things to which I hope they would give some priority.

Northern Ireland (Mitchell Report)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the report of the international body on the decommissioning of illegal arms, which was published earlier today.
The key to progress in Northern Ireland is confidence—confidence to enable the parties to sit down together without threat of force. The retention of arms by the paramilitaries on both sides is the biggest single factor in holding back that confidence. It has so far prevented the holding of all-party talks. That is one of the reasons why we and the Irish Government established the international body, to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue as one track of the twin-tracks initiative that John Bruton and I launched last November.
The body's remit was to identify and advise on acceptable methods of verifiable decommissioning, and then to report on the commitment of the paramilitaries to work constructively to achieve that. We set the body the challenging target of reporting by mid-January. I am extremely grateful to Senator Mitchell and his colleagues, the former Prime Minister of Finland, Harri Holkeri, and General John de Chartelain, for the energy and determination with which they have completed this difficult task.
The body's main conclusions are: first, that the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations has nearly universal support and must continue to be a principal objective; secondly, that to reach an agreed political settlement and take the gun out of politics, all parties should commit themselves to, and honour, six principles embodying the path of democracy and non-violence. These principles include the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations; the renunciation of force and the threat of force; agreement to abide peacefully by whatever agreement is finally reached; and an end to so-called punishment killings and beatings.
Thirdly, the body concludes that there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of illegal arms to work constructively to achieve full and verifiable decommissioning as part of the process of all- party negotiations. The body makes a series of recommendations on the modalities of decommissioning of illegal arms. It emphatically declares that there is no equivalence between such arms and those held by the security forces. It rightly emphasises the need for independent verification.
Fourthly, the body concludes that other confidence-building measures are needed, such as an end to targeting of potential victims by the paramilitaries, information on missing persons and the return of those previously intimidated out of their homes.
The body also records its conclusion, on the basis of its discussions, that the paramilitaries will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiations. The House will note that the body did not conclude that they cannot decommission; the body concluded that they will not, and the House will draw its own conclusions. Although the body makes no formal recommendation on this point, it suggests an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations.
354
The Government welcome the body's endorsement of the seriousness of the decommissioning issue. We welcome and fully endorse the six principles that it sets out. We call on each and every one of the parties to do the same, speedily and unequivocally.
If all concerned were to accept those principles, and honour them, as the international body also rightly emphasised, that would be a significant step forward. Even more significant would be if, in addition, all parties, particularly Sinn Fein, also joined the two Governments in supporting the wide principles of consent set out in the Downing street declaration.
The Government also welcome the body's broad recommendations on the modalities of the decommissioning process. We are ready to implement them. It is now for those in possession of illegal arms to say whether they will accept and act upon them. We look forward to an early and definitive response from the paramilitaries on both sides.
We welcome, too, the emphasis on other confidence-building measures. If the paramilitaries give up their present practice of keeping themselves ready for a return to action, that will be a most welcome sign of real commitment to peaceful methods. Otherwise, gun law continues to hang over the heads of the people in Northern Ireland.
There is therefore much in the report that we can welcome and endorse. But the practical problem remains—how to bring all the parties together. Self-evidently, the best way to generate the necessary confidence is for the paramilitaries to make a start on the decommissioning process. We see no reason why they should not do so.
There can be no justification for the maintenance of private armies by those who claim to be committed to exclusively peaceful means. Opinion polls in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have shown overwhelming public support in both communities for decommissioning before talks. We shall therefore keep up the pressure for an immediate start to the process.
However, I am not prepared to accept that any one group should, through its intransigence, stand in the way of peace and a comprehensive settlement for the people of Northern Ireland. We will not be deflected from our aim. It is now apparent that there may well be another way forward, consistent with the basic principles to which we have always adhered.
One of the confidence-building measures taken up by the international body is the idea of an election. The body made it clear that a broadly acceptable elective process, with an appropriate mandate and within the three-strand structure, could contribute to the building of confidence.
The Government believe that such an elective process offers a viable alternative direct route to the confidence necessary to bring about all-party negotiations. In that context, it is possible to imagine decommissioning and such negotiations being taken forward in parallel.
The election proposal originated in Northern Ireland and, as recent opinion polls have shown, has widespread cross-community support there. A number of parties, including those led by the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), as well as the Alliance party, have put forward proposals for some form of elected body as a means of getting all parties talking together, even if the paramilitaries persist in their refusal to decommission prior to negotiation.

355
It is true that other parties have registered their concerns; they will certainly need to be addressed. We will discuss urgently with all the parties how to overcome them. But, in a democratic system such as ours, I cannot see how elections could be regarded by any of the parties either as a side issue or as a block to progress.
As the Mitchell report says:
"Elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will".
So let me make it quite clear to the House that we are ready to introduce legislation, and to seek both Houses' urgent approval for it, in order to allow such an elective process to go ahead as soon as may he practicable. I hope that this will attract support right across the House.
To sum up, we believe that, in the light of the Mitchell report, there are two ways in which all-party negotiations can now be taken forward. Both are fully consistent with the six principles set out in the report. The first is for the paramilitaries to make a start to decommissioning before all-party negotiations. They can—if they will. If not, the second is to secure a democratic mandate for all-party negotiations through elections specially for that purpose.
Those are two routes to all-party negotiations and to decommissioning. The choice between them is ultimately for the parties themselves. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have every right to expect that one or other of those routes will be taken, and taken soon. For our part, we, together with the Irish Government, will intensify our discussions with the parties. I intend to meet the Taoiseach again in the middle of February to review progress.
The people of Northern Ireland are enjoying today's peace. They wish it to be permanent. They also want and deserve political progress. It is time to put the old enmities to one side, and to allow the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives once again to have a normal say in their future and their affairs.
The proposals that I have put forward today require all concerned to take risks for peace. We have done so before, and we will do so again. Consistent with our principles, we will pursue this process. That is what is needed if we are to build on the achievements of the past two years.
Let us never forget that we are dealing here with the lives of innocent men, women and children. We are dealing with their future, and with the future of Northern Ireland. In the end, our obligations as politicians—as the House of Commons—are to the people whom we govern.
I pledge that I will leave no stone unturned to deliver to the people of Northern Ireland, on a permanent basis, the precious privilege of peace that they have enjoyed for the past 17 months.
Mr. Tony Blair: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the report produced by Senator Mitchell and his colleagues, who have been subject to a punishing schedule to produce the report in just eight weeks. I know that the whole House will be grateful to them.
I consider the report constructive and helpful, although it leaves a number of difficult questions unanswered. Those questions will be addressed in the no doubt
356
intensive discussions between the two Governments and all parties. The report provides certain important elements that can help to move the peace process forward.
I, too, endorse the six principles set out by Senator Mitchell, and hope that other parties will as well. In particular, I endorse the commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues, and to the ending of punishment killings and beatings, which should stop at once. They have no legitimacy. They are simply terrorism in a different form, and they damage the process of peace.
I spell out our firm belief that, if trust is to be established, it must and it should be made clear by all parties that any final settlement will be dependent on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and the more that that is emphasised, the better. Senator Mitchell's report has set out in some detail the modalities of decommissioning paramilitary weapons, including a recommendation that it be verified by an independent body, and we, like the Prime Minister, endorse that. Will the Prime Minister perhaps explain how the Government propose to move forward on the creation of an international commission to verify decommissioning?
At the heart of this issue is how we now move to all-party talks. For that to happen, there must be confidence—in particular, confidence among all parties—that violence has gone for good and been replaced by democratic debate. May I therefore reiterate our support for the view that that confidence cannot arise unless there is tangible evidence of the commitment to democratic means?
We remain of the view that the simplest way of providing that tangible evidence is indeed the decommissioning of weapons. It is right in itself. People in all communities want it. It will strike any reasonable person as sensible. Senator Mitchell says that it will not occur, in his view, before talks. May I stress that, if that is so, it is incumbent on those making it so to engage with other means of building confidence? We accept the ways forward proposed by the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister can assure us that the Government will consider, of course, other options put forward by the parties themselves.
The report makes reference to the possible role of an elective process—perhaps I can say a word about that. We agree that this proposal deserves serious consideration. Will the Prime Minister tell us what, in his view, would be the nature of the mandate and the time scale of such a process?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that an elective process would be a mechanism for substantive negotiations? If it is, how will it fit in the three-stranded process to which the British and Irish Governments are committed? How does he intend to deal with what he accepts are the concerns of other parties about the elective body? As the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the issue of legislation, may I say that, if legislation is forthcoming and there exists the broad agreement necessary for it to work, for our part, we will be happy to co-operate in putting that legislation through Parliament?
The Labour party has adopted a bipartisan approach to the peace process. We have consistently supported the Government on it because we believe it to be right and we believe that the issues connected with it should transcend normal party politics. I reaffirm that bipartisan approach today and our belief that the Government must, of course,

357
make every effort to carry all parties with them. As each day passes, the benefits of peace in Northern Ireland become clearer. Although formidable obstacles remain—of course they do—peace is the only sane path to take for the future. We have offered, and we offer again today, our unqualified support in pursuing it.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the international body and the report and for the specific points that he has made in the past few moments. He said that the principal Opposition party, the Labour party, has adopted a bipartisan approach to this process. That is most certainly so, in public and in private. I am grateful for that, and the process itself has been the stronger for that bipartisan approach.
On the specific points made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am pleased at his endorsement of the six principles, and I concur with the points that he made about them. He shares my firm belief that any final settlement must have the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman's question, let me reaffirm again to the House that, at the conclusion of the talks process, the outcome of that talks process will be put, by means of a referendum, for endorsement by all the people in Northern Ireland. I announced that some time ago, and I reaffirm yet again that that is the case. I think that, in these circumstances, that consent will be necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to talk about the need for verification of decommissioning. The international body's report deals specifically with that. We will need to discuss with the Irish Government the mechanism for establishing an international commission, but I see no great difficulties with it. I think that we would look for distinguished individuals, who would act as an independent body, to verify the manner and certainty of the weapons decommissioning.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that confidence requires tangible evidence of democratic views. He is right also to share my view that there is no justification for decommissioning not starting now, and that, in the event that it does not, those who have refused to do so have a special obligation to see how the process proceeds.
As we proceed, of course we will look at other options that are brought before us. We have always made it clear that we have an open mind to consider options that will carry the confidence of all the parties and people of Northern Ireland towards getting people together in talks—leading to negotiations, to a settlement, to a referendum and to the House's approval of the outcome.
As for the election and the purposes for which it could be used, I see it being used to determine which parties would participate in the talks, and to give each party with elected representation a fresh electoral mandate—testing the extent of its democratic support in current circumstances. I see the election providing a pool of representatives from which party delegations to the talks could be drawn, and a means to index the strength of the parties' delegations in the talks process. Apart from that, of course, I see the election providing, by weighted majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process.
358
We will, of course, consider people's concerns as we do that. Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his confirmation that, when the time might be appropriate to introduce such legislation—I hope that it will not be too long delayed—the official Opposition will co-operate in its swift and comprehensive passage.
Mr. David Trimble: In order to establish the necessary confidence, the Mitchell report sets out six principles, which we accept. It also sets out certain confidence-building measures, such as the elected body, which, in view of the refusal of Sinn Fein-IRA to make the necessary moves in relation to weapons, we regard as the only way forward. Does the Prime Minister realise that, in an opinion poll published in Belfast last week, the concept of an elected body was endorsed by 70 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, by 68 per cent. of the supporters of the party led by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)?
We welcome the Prime Minister's reference to urgent discussions to overcome any difficulties there may be about this proposal. Does the Prime Minister know that, in recent weeks, our party has been engaged in a series of meetings with other parties, including the SDLP, on this and related issues, and that our belief is that those problems can be overcome if there is the necessary will?
We also welcome the statement by the Leader of the Opposition about assistance for the necessary legislation. We believe that such legislation can be carried through the House very quickly, and that we should set the target of elections in April and May this year so that the elected body can get down to work as soon as possible, and thereby open the way to decommissioning and substantive negotiations.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response to what I had to say, and to the report before the House. I am pleased at his unequivocal support for the six principles. I hope that such unequivocal support will come from all the parties that are concerned with these negotiations.
I was, of course, aware of the opinion poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am also aware of similar opinion polls that have been conducted in the Republic of Ireland on similar matters, which produced broadly similar majorities for an elected body and decommissioning. I was aware that the hon. Gentleman and his party had been considering this approach, and were discussing it among themselves, and I welcome his confirmation that he would be prepared to take part in discussions about this proposal in the future.
It is my wish that we shall be able to take all parties with us and move forward with this process. If decommissioning does not take place and it is necessary to use that route, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party and others will be able to move forward swiftly so that we can make early and tangible progress, for that is what people of both communities in Northern Ireland urgently wish to see.
Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us recognise that it was an act of courage to entrust that task to the independent body? If people thought that its task would be easy, the chillingly blunt refusal that it received of the suggestion of any decommissioning will have made them realise how difficult this issue is.

359
May I endorse what the Leader of the Opposition said: that that blunt refusal makes much more difficult Sinn Fein-IRA's task of persuading people of their adherence to the six principles and of building the trust which the independent body says is so essential to this process? Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that his determination to build on the positive aspects of this report, despite some disappointment with it, and to seek to continue, with the courage that he has shown, to carry forward his determined effort for lasting peace, must receive the support it deserves?
The Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he said, we asked the international body to undertake a difficult job, with no certainty that it would be able to make progress. I believe that it has done so comprehensively and well. It is fair to say—indeed, Senator Mitchell would acknowledge this—that the report does not offer a single party connected with the negotiations everything that it might have wished. There is something uncomfortable in the report for every party to the negotiations. We need to use the report as part of the structure to take the present process forward. That is what I seek to do in the response that I have made this afternoon, and I am grateful for the support that has already been provided for that.
As my right hon. Friend said, that raises difficult questions also for the paramilitaries—Sinn Fein-IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries. If they are committed to democracy, they must make it perfectly clear why they will not start to decommission. They must make it clear whether they accept that there is no equivalence between illegal paramilitary arms and the arms of the security forces, as they previously said. They must also make it clear whether they accept the principles on democracy set out in the Mitchell report as well as other matters. They must accept not just the principles of democracy but, as the Mitchell report makes clear, the honouring of the principles of democracy.
Mr. John Hume: May I agree with the Prime Minister's comment that we are dealing with the lives of innocent men, women and children in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it would be utterly irresponsible for any party to play politics with the lives of those people? It would be particularly irresponsible for a Government to try to buy votes to keep themselves in power. Does he also agree that the commission recommends no form of election? It made it clear that that proposal was outside its remit, and that it was making no recommendation, but simply reporting what was said to it.
May I take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation to the commission for the intensity and urgency with which it has perceived its objectives? Although its members come from three different countries, it has spent Christmas and the new year urgently dealing with its track. I invite the Prime Minister to read paragraph 18, which points out that similar urgency is needed on the political track. Will he accept that advice and now fix a date for all-party talks, rather than waste time as he has for the past 17 months? [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I live with it—you don't!
May I make it clear that my party fully and unequivocally supports the six principles in the document, which call for total commitment from all parties to the
360
democratic and peaceful process, and to the total renunciation and rejection of violence? Does the Prime Minister feel that, if all parties committed themselves to those six principles, he could fix a date for all-party talks?
The Prime Minister: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there cannot be all-party talks unless there is confidence that encourages all parties to attend those talks. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman saying, "Let us have all-party talks," when he knows that, without confidence, neither the communities nor the political parties in Northern Ireland would be able to come to such talks.
The hon. Gentleman has for many years played a leading role in Northern Ireland in trying to bring people together and trying to ensure that we move towards peace. It would be a tragedy of enormous proportions if he himself put a barrier across our progress towards peace in Northern Ireland at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman talked about buying votes in this House. If I had been concerned about short-term electoral matters on this issue, I probably would not have embarked upon the process in the first place. From the outset of the process, I have made it clear—and, from time to time, I have taken risks in order to demonstrate—that what I care about is trying to prevent the killing, the bloodshed, the hatred, the abuse and the sheer nastiness that has dominated too much of the lives of British citizens in Northern Ireland for far too many years.
I am prepared to take risks for that, but I am not prepared to buy votes for it. I will stand upon the principles upon which I have stood since the beginning of the process, and I do not intend to be shaken free of them by the hon. Gentleman's remarks or by any other circumstance. What matters to me is carrying the process forward.
The hon. Gentleman has been engaged in the battle for peace in Northern Ireland for longer than I have—I acknowledge that—but I care about it as much as he does, and I am engaged in it as much as he is. I am approaching the matter, as I hope the hon. Gentleman is, with good will, and my prime concern is that we move the process forward. We must not allow old hatreds, old enmities and old stupidities to prevent the progress from now until we secure peace.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister, and the sensible remarks from the Leader of the official Opposition. The Mitchell commission recognises that it would be impossible for those who believe that decommissioning should take place first to have any confidence unless the six principles outlined are not only accepted by the paramilitary organisations, but honoured. As one of those principles is the total decommissioning of their weaponry, cannot that honouring take place only after decommissioning has occurred? That being the case, the Prime Minister is right to recognise that the only real way forward is through an election.
May I state unequivocally that, while I might have liked some further principles to be added to the six that the Senator and his team have laid down, I can give my support to those six? I will work with the Prime Minister in his

361
efforts to bring about an election, so that the people of Northern Ireland can put forward their negotiators in an attempt to get a real and structured peace in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has to say. I agree with the analysis of why the route forward is the democratic route, and we must bring into play the views of the majority of people in all communities, who I believe wish to see the process continued. I see no route other than the one I have outlined, unless decommissioning takes place prior to talks, which, of course, would remove the need for an elective route.
The paramilitaries may be intransigent or unwilling to begin decommissioning, which—I remind the House—is what is asked for. No one has asked for the total decommissioning of all weapons before talks begin. We have told Sinn Fein and the loyalist paramilitaries, in order to provide confidence for the people of Northern Ireland and the political parties and their representatives in Northern Ireland, "Show your determination to seek peace by beginning to decommission." We have said not that they should totally decommission, but that they should begin to decommission before we get into talks and negotiations. In the absence of that, I see no route available at present—unless a fresh one, as yet unknown, is suggested—other than the process I have set out before the House.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I warmly welcome the commission report from Senator Mitchell. It was a very tough job, but it has been done thoroughly and deserves support. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have been able to provide such a welcome for it as well. Frankly, that cannot have been easy, because the report did not fulfil all that the Government had wished for. I am sure that the Prime Minister is right to welcome it. I was also extremely pleased to hear the welcome that the report has received across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. That has shown—we have heard some of it today—some considerable statesmanship.
The Prime Minister should be clear—I do not need to stress it too much to him—that the Liberal Democrats take the view that those who have terrorised Northern Ireland through the bomb and the gun, on all sides, in the past 25 years need to show a concrete example of why they are now moving to democracy. It remains our view that the best way to do that would be through the decommissioning of weapons. It has for some time been argued that, should that not prove possible, approaching the process through an elected convention is a right and proper alternative route to take. We have proposed that to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on previous occasions.
Nevertheless, I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree with me—we have heard some evidence of it today—that that idea produces peculiar and legitimate sensitivities on the part of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, for whom words like "assembly" have chilling and unacceptable reverberations of failure in the past. Matters such as the size of such a body, its remit, its nature and its time limitation, are absolutely vital. We will submit some thoughts on that to the Prime Minister in the near future.
362
I should like to touch briefly on one other matter relating to confidence-building measures. In December, when I was in Dublin to see the Taoiseach, I proposed to him that there might be case for a limited cross-Ireland amnesty for the surrender of Semtex. I understand that much is held, and that many of those in possession of it would like a chance to get rid of it.
Semtex is unique, because it is a purely aggressive weapon, with no defensive purposes and no forensic history. Does the Prime Minister believe that, as part of the confidence-building measures, such an offer, made by both Governments and unconnected with the peace process, could nevertheless contribute greatly to building confidence around that process in the future?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and for his kind words about Senator Mitchell and his colleagues. I am pleased that he concurs with our view—one that I know he has expressed—that, first, the right approach would have been decommissioning by those who hold weapons, but, in the absence of that, the right way to proceed is the way that we have proposed.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the details of the election and the body are crucial. Those will need to be discussed with the parties, and we will wish to remove sensitivities wherever we can. I will, of course, be pleased to receive any representations from the right hon. Gentleman, the official Opposition or any other colleagues in the House.
On the question of an amnesty, our aim is to take terrorist weapons out of circulation. That is what matters. There could not, of course, be an amnesty for the murders and violence of the past.
Mr. Ashdown indicated assent.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that, but I am making that point so that there is no misunderstanding that that could be on offer at any stage. The issues raised in the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments will be among those that we will have to consider and examine.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, in contrast to the remarks of hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), on the Conservative Benches and further afield there is widespread and the strongest possible support for the statement that he has made, and for his entire handling of the peace process?
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the proposition that what we are seeking by various means, one of which may be an elective process and decommissioning in parallel, from IRA-Sinn Fein and others is an irrefutable and irrevocable demonstration that they are committed exclusively to peaceful means? Does he also agree that we are seeking evidence that they accept the principle of consent, which means acknowledging that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and will remain so as long as that is the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. Indeed, the House will have been familiar with the specific formulation that he used. I am grateful

363
for his support for the line that we have proposed to take. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in Northern Ireland, and is a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland. I think that his support for this approach is warmly welcomed.
Mr. Clive Soley: If the Prime Minister is obliged to go down the route of an elected assembly because the paramilitary groups are not prepared to surrender weapons, he will know from what has already been said that there is acute concern, especially among the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, that any assembly should not represent a return to some of the structures that have failed in the past. His problem is to carry with him the elected republican parties in Northern Ireland. What guarantees did he give them and other people that their fears about the past will not come true in future?
The Prime Minister: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. When I made my statement to the House some time ago, I acknowledged that not every party in Northern Ireland had advocated this approach, that there would be some sensitivities about it, and that we would seek to see what could be done to meet those sensitivities.
I have made the point consistently that, if we are to achieve peace successfully in Northern Ireland, we are going to have to achieve consent across the political divide in Northern Ireland. That has been our approach from the outset, and it remains our approach. Of course, we will try to take on board the sensitivities that people have as we take this matter forward.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend join me in deploring yesterday's selective leaking and briefing by the Dublin Government and the Irish ambassador, and agree that, while remaining opposed to all-party talks before decommissioning, it would be utterly irresponsible simply to reject the report? Does he accept that this Tory at least is prepared to consider elections in Northern Ireland, because he believes it to be right, not because it might buy support? I find it deeply offensive for people to suggest that elections might be such a tactic. This issue is far, far too important to play gutter politics with.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his view about the selective leaking of the Mitchell report, and, indeed, the selective leaking of any report on any occasion. It does, sadly, happen from time to time. Many people's lives would be easier were that not to be the case.
Mr. Ashdown indicated assent. [Laughter.]
The Prime Minister: One does not have to be in government to realise that leaking, whether total or selective, can sometimes be difficult.
I know my hon. Friend's strong feelings about Northern Ireland, but it would not have been at all responsible to reject this report because there are things in it that do not accord wholly with the previous position of the
364
Government. I think that what we are doing is accepting, as every party to these negotiations has to accept, that, within the Mitchell report, there is something that each and every party will like and something that each and every party will not like.
But what we must not do is get ourselves in the position that we have so often been in in Northern Ireland, in which, because there is something one party does not like, it brings the whole process to a juddering halt. I am prepared to operate within the principles we have set out with a degree of pragmatism in order to reach the conclusion that this House wishes to see reached, and I believe that will be the view of most hon. Members.
On the other point made by my hon. Friend, I think perhaps I could do no better than to quote from paragraph 56 of the Mitchell report:
"Elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will".
That is entirely true. That is how all of us arrived here in this House.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Prime Minister agree that, while all welcome his statement on the commission's report, and while paragraph 20 sets out the six principles, with which the whole House agrees, it omits to mention the principle of consent that governs all democratic proceedings? Does he accept that the principle of consent would have to govern not only any agreement that may emerge from any substantive negotiations but the possibility of disagreement or failure to arrive at an agreement?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right about the consent principle. The report makes it clear that all the parties should accept democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving issues, and should agree to abide by the terms of any agreement. As I said earlier—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may share my view—it would be a significant additional step if Sinn Fein were to join the two Governments and the other parties in supporting the principle of consent in the Downing street declaration.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend that among the more than 3,000 who have lost their lives in the past 25 years are Ian Gow, Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and Airey Neave. Is it not a proper memorial to them and to all the others that we should go beyond bipartisanship to non-partisanship, that every party that takes part in the process, which we hope we will be able to start, should try to overcome any past obstacles, and that those parties should talk, not only to the Mitchell group, but to each other? That requires each of them to create the conditions under which the others will come.
The Prime Minister: All the former Members of the House mentioned by my hon. Friend were democrats. I think that all of them, were they here today, would have been urging us to take a risk for peace. In my judgment, all the people who have suffered in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years, were they able to be here today—on either side of the House—would be saying the same thing: peace is worth a risk—take it.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his good fortune in having a tangential advantage in the statement announced today—that of keeping his Government in power.

365
Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Taoiseach has agreed with the Government's proposed course of action? I am not suggesting that he can veto anything that the right hon. Gentleman does, but has he agreed with the proposal? Does the principle of consent, as outlined in the Downing street declaration and the framework document—which we all support—amount only to British sovereignty over Northern Ireland, not to the imposition of any arrangements that do not have the support of a majority in both communities?
The Prime Minister: The principle of consent relates to the agreement, and that is set out clearly in the documents before us. I do not propose to respond to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is unworthy; I have responded to it once this afternoon, and see no purpose in responding to it again. I spoke to the Taoiseach last evening; he was well aware of what I was going to say, and we both look forward to meeting and to discussing the subject at a forthcoming summit.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Not only is the report a tribute to the people who created and wrote it, but it is the culmination of the long-standing forbearance, patience and courage of both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who have liaised with the senior Irish Ministers involved.
As a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Association, I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his earlier forthright mention of the fact that any delicate election process or system that is to be constructed, in whatever way it may emerge—in itself a difficult matter—would not be a return to the old Stormont paralysis or the Ulster assembly system, which was, I vividly and painfully remember, sabotaged by Protestant militants two decades ago.
The Prime Minister: It is certainly not a return to the past; I see it as a step to the future. I think that that is how it has been viewed by all those who have examined the proposition over recent months and put their name to it.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I wish to associate myself with the gratitude expressed to Senator Mitchell and his team for their work, and with the tributes to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their responsible attitude to that issue.
The Prime Minister must know, however, that, when one adopts an idea that has emanated from one side or the other in Northern Ireland, suspicion is immediately aroused on the other side, as has happened in connection with more than one issue in Northern Ireland of late. Bearing that in mind, to keep the SDLP and the other parties on board, will he listen carefully to their representations about the nature and modality of the proposed assembly, and about the possibility of a time scale for its existence?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. I think I may say that, in the past three or four years, I have gone to enormous pains, as have my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, to try to ensure that we can remove misunderstandings, and that we can take on board the views and sensitivities of all the parties. I have made that point clear repeatedly.
366
I am as well aware as any hon. Member that we need to carry people with us—all the people with us, if we can—if we are to achieve a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations that we are embarked on. That has been our position in the past, and it remains our position today.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Although the Mitchell commission says that decommissioning would take place "during the process" of all-party negotiations, it does not say how those negotiations and decommissioning would interact. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will never allow a position in which Sinn Fein-IRA are allowed to take part in negotiations if there is even the vaguest implicit threat that violence may be resumed if they do not get what they want?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Perhaps I may refer him especially to paragraph 34 of the Mitchell report, which says:
"The parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations, rather than before or after as the parties now urge. Such an approach represents a compromise. If the peace process is to move forward, the current impasse must be overcome."
That is precisely the way I see it.
Obviously, at the beginning of such talks, I would suspect that the parties themselves will wish to erect a series of staging posts, but it is not for me at this stage to set out precisely what they would do or how they would agree it. I believe that they would wish to discuss that matter at the beginning of their talks. I think Senator Mitchell envisages that that is what they would do, and so do I.
Miss Kate Hoey: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and the statement by the Leader of the Opposition. I say to the Prime Minister that I personally do not believe that either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition would be prepared to play politics with the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
I repudiate the insinuations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I wish to dissociate myself from those remarks.
Can the Prime Minister tell me any possible reason why, if the proposals for an elected body were taken up—as they might be—any democratic party that believes in democracy would refuse to get involved in an election for that body with a very narrow mandate?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said, which I deeply appreciate.
As to the second part of her question, I can give the hon. Lady no good reason why any democratic party would refuse to take part in an election for the narrow purposes set out in my statement today. I cannot conceive that there is a credible reason for refusing to take part in that, and I very much hope that no one will.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his outstanding commitment to a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It was his initiative, he has driven it, and it should not be overlooked. As a Conservative and committed Unionist, I also congratulate

367
the official Unionist party, its leader and his predecessor on their enlightened and constructive attitude to the peace process.
Paragraph 19 of the report says:
"there must be commitment and adherence to fundamental principles of democracy and non-violence."
Because confidence is so important, can my right hon. Friend tell the House this afternoon that it is his belief that Sinn Fein-IRA are prepared to accept those fundamentals, which they have never done in their history?
The Prime Minister: We wait to hear from them. The statement that they have produced so far has not covered that point. Clearly, we wish to hear from them and from the loyalist paramilitaries—from both sides—precisely whether they accept those principles and that commitment. We hope that they will accept them, and that they will state that unequivocally. I look forward to hearing them say so. They now have the opportunity to argue the case and to say directly, on television and on radio, that they accept those principles. I hope that they will use the opportunities that are open to them.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Mitchell report does not recommend immediate elections, but recommends a compromise between those who demand decommissioning before all-party talks and those who maintain that decommissioning can take place only at the conclusion of all-party talks? Will the Prime Minister accept a staged process of decommissioning in parallel with immediate all-party talks, with elections to be held on a new constitutional settlement after the all-party talks agree to such a settlement?
The Prime Minister: We must get all the parties to the table in order to have all-party talks. To do that, we need the confidence of the people and all the parties of Northern Ireland. That is the ingredient that is missing from the hon. Gentleman's proposition. That is why we are seeking an electoral position that will enable all parties to have that confidence and to have a direct mandate to enter into talks. The election is the mechanism that will allow that to occur. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why we have proposed it, and what it will achieve.
Mr. Richard Spring: My right hon. Friend has spoken about the need to boost confidence in order to develop the political processes in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that a significant step toward improved confidence in Northern Ireland would be the immediate cessation of killings and punishment beatings?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly agree with that. My hon. Friend has some direct experience of Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for his support. He is entirely correct. If that were to happen, it would certainly increase the feeling of confidence across the communities in Northern Ireland, and, as such, would be a very welcome development.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people who hoped that the ceasefire
368
would lead to early all-party talks have been strengthened in that view by the peace process in South Africa, the agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Dayton accord—not one of which required the decommissioning of weapons? In the latter case, President Clinton said that the arms embargo could be lifted a few weeks after the Dayton accord was agreed.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the process began when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), Mr. Adams and Albert Reynolds advanced a proposition to end the fighting based on the idea that the people on the island of Ireland—north and south and in the two communities—should be able to determine their own future? If there is a newly elected body and a referendum in the north that underlines the division of Ireland, it is no more likely that peace will be secured now—whatever the parties' intentions—than in the past hundreds of years.
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman were to look more carefully, he would see that the report refers to "north and south respectively". The right hon. Gentleman ran them together, and referred to the "north and south", which gives a rather different impression of the view at that stage. Northern Ireland is already a practising democracy, and therefore is different from some of the examples that the right hon. Gentleman gave.
The underlying point remains the same. We have sought to gain the confidence of both communities from the outset. If we do not obtain their confidence, we cannot carry the process through to a conclusion. That point cannot be ducked if we are to reach a settlement.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach and achievements to date? Could he confirm that there are two alternative approaches to all-party talks: one is through the acceptance by the parties of the six principles, and therefore confidence-building measures; and the other is through the election? Does the election require that the people standing for election should adopt the six principles first?
The Prime Minister: No, the two routes are not quite as my hon. Friend set out. The first way to obtain the confidence that would lead to all-party talks would be some prior decommissioning by the paramilitary bodies. On that basis, I think that all parties would come together and talk without an election.
The second way would be the elective basis that I set out this afternoon. If that is to be successful, we would hope and expect all parties to declare their support for the six principles. Those are the two options—either some prior decommissioning, or, through the process of an elective body, to determine who would take part in the negotiations.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister accept that, like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), all right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches live in Northern Ireland? They have suffered as well, and they speak for a large section of the community that has been severely hit by terrorism for 25 years. We are equally anxious to ensure that peace prevails in the long term in Northern Ireland.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that, although we accept the six principles in the report, we do not agree with other elements in it? We welcome the

369
Prime Minister's statement to the House, and we emphasise that we welcome also the thoughtful response by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
As to the forthcoming election in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister correct the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who does not understand the difference between an assembly and an elected body? If that hon. Gentleman is in the British-Irish Parliamentary Association, he ought to know the difference.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we are talking not about an assembly but about an elected body, having no legislative or administrative powers in Northern Ireland? Can the Prime Minister tell the House that, in co-operation with Her Majesty's Opposition and other parties, he will expedite the election to ensure that it does not coincide with other possible elections—for example, a general election in the Republic of Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's support. The whole House knows of the time when the right hon. Gentleman was badly wounded as the result of an incident in Northern Ireland, and of the courage that he has shown in his career in politics since then. Many Northern Ireland politicians on both sides of the divide have shown great courage. I draw no distinction in the difficult circumstances of politics in Northern Ireland. I hope that those politicians will show the same moral courage to move forward as they have shown physical and moral courage in the past.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot agree with every point in the Mitchell report. I dare say that no one does. Over time, it may turn out that one of the report's greatest strengths is that everyone will find something in it with which he can agree, and something with which he is not quite so happy to agree.
As to the proposed elections, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned that they would establish a body that had no legislative or administrative powers. I hope that it will be of assurance to everyone across Northern Ireland that it is a mechanism for getting into all-party talks and finding a proper solution, following which I hope that we can ensure that politicians in Northern Ireland are able to take a greater share of responsibility than they have been able to do in the past.
Rev. William McCrea: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that real, genuine and lasting peace is a rich prize for the people of Northern Ireland—and something that they do not want in any way to see thrown away.
I am sure that the Prime Minister recollects that two years ago, in 1993, the leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and myself presented a document proposing a constitutional convention for Northern Ireland. Bearing it in mind that at least 70 per cent. of all the people right across the community in Northern Ireland support such a body, surely the matter should be moved upon with utmost urgency. Surely no one in a democracy should be afraid of the will of the ballot box.
The Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I recall the proposals for a constitutional convention that the hon. Member for North
370
Antrim and his hon. Friends presented to me some time ago. I have not yet mentioned Mr. Alderdice of the Alliance party, who has also played a constructive role. I hope that, as a result of all those proposals, we will be able to move forward.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I assure the Prime Minister that we fully support the six principles, unequivocally and without any reservations? I also wish to point out that people should read the fifth principle—paragraph 20(e) as it is in the document—carefully before they start talking about the absence of the principle of consent from the document.
I wish to refer the Prime Minister to a section of the document that he mentioned earlier—paragraph 34 of Senator Mitchell's report. That paragraph recommends that all parties, including the Governments not "might", not "may", but "should" follow a course of action in terms of decommissioning as part of the talks process.
Is not the reality of the situation that the Prime Minister and the Government are actually rejecting that core element of Senator Mitchell's report, and that, not only on that but on all the key political elements of the report and the recommendations, the Prime Minister is at odds with Senator Mitchell, his commission, and the Irish Government? Is not the Prime Minister creating a situation in which the consensus that will be required in any democratic experiment simply will not be there, because he is at odds with those with whom he should be working closely on the central, fundamental elements?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have worked very closely with him and his hon. Friends over the past three years, and I look forward to doing so in future.
On the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, if he considers paragraph 20(e)—or principle five, whatever one wishes to call it—he will see that at best it means limited consent, not full consent, in the terms of the documentation that we have seen in the past. Limited consent I concede: full consent I emphatically do not concede. That is most certainly not the case.
I have two points to make to the hon. Gentleman about paragraph 34, and both are accurate and pragmatic. First, paragraph 34 is not a recommendation, and is not put forward as a recommendation. Secondly, it does not get everyone to the table. We have to get everyone to the table in order to advance, and that is the purpose.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the elections. The purpose of those elections is not to produce some body that would return to the concerns that the nationalist community has had in the past. The purpose is to enable a process to take place so that people can be elected to a body that does not have legislative powers, and to ensure that there is a democratic mandate for negotiations, and everybody can sit down together.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has been as passionate as any Member of the House over the years about getting everybody to sit down together and discuss the future. All I would say to him is that here is a way of achieving that, and he should not turn away from it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker:Order. We are now going to move on.

Registration of Immigration Advice Practitioners
4.37 pm
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a system of registration for approved immigration advice practitioners; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Bill to the House. My Bill seeks to establish a system of registration to improve the standards of immigration advice practitioners. It is designed to help their clients—sometimes the most hapless victims and most vulnerable people in our society, and drawn largely from the ethnic minorities. Those clients are occasionally, and more and more frequently, at the mercy of unqualified and incompetent immigration advisers.
Those so-called advisers, or cowboys as I prefer to call them, operate by exploiting the ignorance of applicants and to reap large fees for poor-quality—and sometimes deliberately false—advice. In so doing, they extend and complicate the immigration application procedures, prolong the duress on the applicants, make them pay large fees at regular intervals and clog up the entire system of processing applications, to the detriment of genuine applicants.
Those people build up a large case load of work, which the taxpayer pays for, and embark on appeals, tribunals, judicial reviews and so on, funded by legal aid. In parallel, they charge their clients exorbitant fees at every stage.
If we are serious about stopping bogus applications, we must address the source of the problem: bogus advice given by bogus advisers who exploit applicants for reward.
It is not in the interests of bogus advisers to settle applications swiftly and satisfactorily. It is in their interests to prolong the process—until it fails, at which point their hapless clients are either prevented from entering the country or are removed from the country, erasing at a stroke any future action against them for negligence or complaint.
The scale of the problem is difficult to quantify, but from a small survey in the London area I have enough evidence to claim that between 70 and 80 per cent. of immigration advisers are of doubtful provenance. That of course excludes qualified solicitors, citizens advice bureaux and other reputable advisory services, and Members of Parliament.
My Bill is designed to license the cowboys who set up shop, advertise, charge fees and then move on, leaving chaos and despair in their wake.
At this point, I should like to quote the authority of Mr. Justice Stephen Sedley, chief immigration liaison officer in the High Court. On 31 March 1995, in ex parte motion Miranda he said, obiter dicta:
"I want to say that this court sees a sorry trail of applicants whose rights have been forfeited or lost or garbled or injured by putting themselves into the hands of unqualified advisers in the immigration field."
372
Other countries have faced this problem and set out to resolve it. Three years ago, Australia passed a statute—the Migration (Amendment) (No. 3) Act 1992, which confined the right to give advice to lawyers or to registered agents. In order to secure registration, proof has to be given of competence and some financial security. The Australian migration agents registration scheme has an independent board appointed by the Immigration Minister, which has the power to register aliens, to investigate complaints received about an agent and to impose disciplinary sanctions on an agent.
Voluntary workers are required to register, but are exempt from paying registration fees. Criminal penalties exist for unregistered practice. So far, 1,800 agents are registered under the Australian scheme; 307 have been refused registration; 270 have been deregistered; and 741 complaints have been received.
As some of my colleagues know, I am strongly committed to deregulation, but I also recognise, just as the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 recognises, the principle of necessary protection, as defined in the 1994 Act and in Standing Order No. 124(A). I do not believe that self-regulation will work. The cowboys will not register. They will operate by word of mouth and client ignorance. Under self-regulation, the relevant bodies will not have the power to monitor and police themselves. Cowboys are mobile and can set up shop at any time under assumed names. They then charge their clients arbitrary fees.
My Bill is designed to set up a council of licensed immigration advisers, whose duty will be to maintain and ensure standards of conduct and professional competence among those who practise as immigration advisers. The council will issue licences and will maintain a register, under the direction of the Secretary of State. It will also have powers to investigate and to make rules. It will be an offence to pass oneself off as an immigration adviser without a licence. It will be an offence liable to summary conviction and/or imprisonment for someone to practise as an immigration adviser in return for payment or material reward without holding a licence.
My Bill will protect the most vulnerable. It will make the application process more efficient. It will save the applicants who are now exploited a considerable amount of money. Most important, it will save the public money, by reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the legal aid that is being used because of the poor quality of advice that is given by unqualified or incompetent immigration advisers.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Piara S. Khabra and Mr. Simon Hughes.

Registration of Immigration Advice Practitioners
  REGISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION ADVICE PRACTITIONERS
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva accordingly presented a Bill to establish a system of registration for approved immigration advice practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

  Points of Order
  4.46 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to suspend the House for 10 minutes so that Opposition Members can have a cup of tea, because they have been banned from the Tea Room?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): No suspension is called for for anything at the moment.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely concerned—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will listen to an hon. Member who has an important point of order.
  Mr. Hendry: I am extremely concerned that, on an Opposition Supply day, some 220 Labour Members are missing. Will you check, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the annunciator screens are working, so that all the Labour Members who might want to support their health spokesman know that the debate has started? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman had a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Graham Riddick rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) will stay behind the red lines.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has a genuine and honourable point of order I know that he wants to speak in this afternoon's debate.
  In that case, we shall move on.

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.47 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
  That this House views with alarm the mounting evidence of inadequate patient care and of overstretched staff and facilities in the NHS; deplores the relentless cuts in NHS beds; condemns the increased amount of money spent on internal market bureaucracy rather than on front line services and staff; and calls on the Government to announce an immediate moratorium on bed closures; nominate someone in each health authority to identify bed shortages and take appropriate action locally; monitor and publish a weekly report on the number of beds and staff available; and issue clear national guidelines to end the uncertainty about who pays for continuing care.
  The debate is about the crisis in our national health service. It is about the hundreds of patients who wait on trolleys for emergency treatment. It is about the thousands who are denied the treatment that they need. It is about the millions of people throughout the country who no longer feel that they and their families can rely on our NHS.
  The people of Britain want to know the answer to some very simple questions. Why is our great national health service being torn limb from limb by the Tory Government? Why is the NHS, which the Conservatives claimed would be safe in their hands, being savaged in their hands? Why have one in six NHS acute hospital beds been cut since 1990? Why are there 20,000 more managers and accountants in the NHS, but 50,000 fewer front-line staff on the wards?
  The British people have a clear decision to make and that is what today's debate is about. It is a decision between a unified national health service with Labour and an NHS that is simply being frittered away under the Tories; a decision between more money on doctors and nurses with Labour and wasted money on accountants, form filling and bureaucracy under the Tories; and a decision between a strong public service for the next century with Labour and an NHS that is privatised, broken up and sold off to the highest bidder under the Tories.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I would just like to ask the hon. Lady one question. Is it still Labour party policy to abolish fundholding?
  Ms Harman: We have said that we are absolutely concerned that access to hospitals should be on the basis of clinical need, that everyone in primary care should work towards a local health strategy, agreed locally, and that there should be the minimum of duplication and bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman will understand from that that there are many problems with GP fundholding. We are concerned to ensure that there is fair treatment for every patient and a fair say for every GP in our renewed national health service.
  Mr. John Sykes: How much extra money would the hon. Lady pour into the hospitals? Is

  375
  not it a good thing that there is no such thing as a grant-maintained hospital, otherwise would not she have been in more trouble?
  Ms Harman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not rise to complain to the Secretary of State about the fact that, in his health region, 7,546 hospital beds have been closed. That is what his constituents want him to be speaking up about in the House rather than making cheap points. [Interruption.]
  Today's debate is important because the NHS is at a crossroads. The importance of the NHS cannot be overstated. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Ms Harman: The NHS is the public institution that the British people cherish more than any other. It remains, despite the Tories, one of the few public services that bind the nation together. People want to have the confidence that the NHS will be there for them and their families. But today, under the Tories, they cannot have that confidence.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Ms Harman: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Sexist.
  Mr. Davies: Is not it extraordinary that a party that has the pretension to be an alternative Government simply does not know the answer to the question whether it wants to abolish GP fundholding?
  Ms Harman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he cannot understand. We have set out our concerns and how we shall address them.
  Whatever the Secretary of State says, people know what is really happening. They know that each and every day seriously ill people are being turned away from casualty. They know that treatments that used to be available on the NHS are simply no longer available in some areas. They can see from their own daily lives the growing reality of privatisation of our health services.
  The Tories' strategy for the NHS is clear. They are allowing the NHS to fail and that is privatisation by the back door. Up and down the country, they are withdrawing many services so that people have to go to the private sector for treatment. They are changing what is left of the NHS so that it becomes less and less a public service and more and more a private business run on the basis of cost, not on the basis of need.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Given the hon. Lady's commitment to the Conservative principle of choice in education—[Interruption]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Tredinnick rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Tredinnick rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman deaf? [Interruption.] Order. There will be freedom of speech on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Has the hon. Lady ever taken advantage of private health care?
  Ms Harman: No. But let me make something clear to the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken of choice in relation to private health care. For many people, it is no longer a question of choice; they feel that they are refugees, driven out of the national health service because it is no longer available to them. We want the national health service to be available, so that people do not feel that they must pay again to obtain private treatment.
  Nowhere is the rundown more devastatingly clear than in casualty departments. A fundamental principle of the NHS is that it will always be there for people in an emergency; at least, that used to be a fundamental principle, but it does not apply any more. Casualty departments have been closed, and critically ill patients are being turned away. It is happening throughout the country, as every hon. Member will know.
  In London, at the St. Helier hospital, Carshalton, the casualty department was closed for 22 hours on 27 November. All ambulances were turned away. On another occasion, in the same hospital, patients had to be treated in the ambulances outside the casualty department because there were not even enough trolleys in the department; they were all full. On 14 January, at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, patients waited for 19 hours on trolleys in casualty. Many personal tragedies are occurring throughout the country.
  Nine-year-old Nicholas Geldard was playing at his Stockport home just before Christmas when he fell ill. The emergency services searched hospital after hospital for an intensive care bed, but none could be found. Eventually, an ambulance had to take him across the Pennines in the small hours of the morning, in freezing fog, with his parents following by car. When they finally arrived at Leeds general hospital, they were told that their son had died on the way. No one can say whether he would have lived, but we know that he never had the chance of life that an intensive care bed in the NHS could have given him.
  Consultant physician Professor J. D. Ward of the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield warns:
  "For God's sake, do not get ill…to be taken as an ill patient into an acute casualty or admissions ward is now a major danger in life."
  It is not that the Government have not been warned; they will not listen. They have ignored the advice of the British Medical Association, which has told them that hospital emergency services are at breaking point because of a
  "severe and prolonged crisis in the acute sector".
  They have ignored the Royal College of Nursing, which has warned that nurses' morale is now so low that 37 per cent. say that they would leave nursing if they could.
  The reason for the crisis in our hospitals and for the plummeting morale of doctors and nurses is obvious: more than one in six NHS hospital beds have been closed. When sick patients are turned away from hospitals, the Government are betraying the basic principles on which the NHS was founded.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Lady cannot get away with being so evasive about GP

  377
  fundholders. As of next year, 100 per cent. of the people in my constituency will be treated by GP fundholders and, as a result, they will receive a far better standard of primary health care than ever before. They will want to know, just as we do, whether the Labour party would abolish GP fundholding for those who are gaining so many benefits from it. Is the answer yes or no?
  Ms Harman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the policies that will be pursued under a Labour Government, and he will certainly hear of the discussions that we are having with GPs, both fundholders and non-fundholders, to sort out the mess that the Tory Government have created. I am surprised that he has not risen to his feet today to complain about the problems caused to his constituents in the west midlands because, in that region, one in five hospital beds have been closed in the past five years, the number of nurses has been cut by 12 per cent. and the number of managers has gone up by 310 per cent.
  Mr. Coombs: What is the answer? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no good the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) saying, "What is the answer?" when the hon. Lady is giving her answer. He may not like the answer, but that is not my responsibility.
  Ms Harman: It used to be a fundamental principle that NHS patients would be entitled to the best medical treatment, irrespective of where they lived, but now managers in each region are deciding on the ground of cost what will and will not be available on the NHS.
  Two years ago, only four health authorities were excluding treatment from the NHS. Now 40 health authorities, one third of all the authorities in the country, are rationing, so people have to be careful where they become ill. Do not get brittle bones in Dorset, because the health authority is stopping screening for osteoporosis there. Do not get infected wisdom teeth in Hertfordshire or Kingston and Richmond, because the health authority will not take them out there. Health care has become a lottery, depending on where people live.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Labour Front-Bench spokeswoman, to practise sex discrimination—in the debate, she has given way only to men and not to women?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Lady's point of order will have been noted by Madam Speaker.
  Ms Harman: It was not sex discrimination that made me not respond to the hon. Lady's intervention: it was kindness.
  The problem is that, when people cannot get the treatment that they need on the NHS, they have to go private or go without. Again, we see the Government strategy of creeping privatisation at work. Again, it used to be a fundamental principle that the NHS provided not just for illness, but for a wide range of health care needs, but now services are being pushed one by one into the private sector.
  378
  Take dentistry. When people go to an NHS dentist, they pay so much, now that the charges have gone up, that they think they have gone private anyway. First, charges are pushed up so high that people can hardly tell the difference between the public and the private sector; then fewer and fewer dentists do NHS work, so more and more people end up having to go private.
  Take long-term nursing care. The Government close long-stay wards and force people into the private sector. People used to receive treatment free and now they have to pay. It is no wonder that private health care is growing. These are the facts. There are now 28 per cent. fewer NHS hospital beds than there were 15 years ago, but there are 66 per cent. more private hospital beds than there were 15 years ago.
  That, however, is just the start. The Government want to go further. They are handing public health services over to private organisations through market testing, the private finance initiative and making the NHS buy services in the private sector. Their privatisation strategy is about not just putting out services to the private sector, but changing the basic ethos of what is left of the NHS, so it is no longer doctors and nurses who decide how people are treated: it is accountants and bureaucrats put in by the Tories.
  If people want to know where so much NHS money has gone in the past five years, I shall tell them. It has gone on accountants, on senior managers, on their company cars and on their form filling. The number of managers has increased from 5,000 five years ago to 23,000 today. At the same time, 50,000 staff have been cut from our wards. These are the Tory priorities for our health services: more people to count the cost of care, fewer people to provide that care. They are not, however, the priorities of the British people, who are totally opposed to the privatisation of the NHS.
  The Secretary of State for Health, for all he protests—as he will, no doubt, today—that he is the friend of the NHS, is nothing more than the presentable face of privatisation. I should like to ask him some simple questions about where he stands. First, on the casualty crisis, does he agree with this statement:
  "I believe that it is unacceptable that people entering the hospital through the accident and emergency unit should be kept waiting for hour after hour on a trolley"?
  Does he believe that that is unacceptable? That statement was made by the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). If the Secretary of State agrees with that statement, which he says he does, and I welcome that, why does he not implement—
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Lady has just quoted my words, so I think that I am entitled to ask her the further question: does she welcome the steps that the Government have taken to create new emergency wards at Good Hope hospital, to provide new nurses and to modernise the accident and emergency unit?
  Ms Harman: No, I do not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will hon. Members listen? I do not welcome those steps

  379
  because they are a sham. If hon. Members will listen, I received a letter from the chief executive of Good Hope hospital today, who said:
  "I can tell you there are no new beds being opened. We are simply re-opening beds that have been closed through lack of staff resources."
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for coming to Good Hope hospital in north Birmingham. May I confirm that none of the so-called beds opened when the Secretary of State for Health was walking down the corridor is new—they are reopened beds? There is no money available for an admissions ward alongside the accident and emergency unit. It will be a year before building on that ward can be started, even if it can be funded. May I confirm that the money that is now being spent on refurbishing the accident and emergency unit is not new or extra money, but money that the regional health authority already had and had allocated for that purpose?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend's points demonstrate that the Government's response to the crisis facing patients is to produce bogus statistics and false solutions. Why does not the Secretary of State produce a real solution to the casualty crisis and act now?
  There are many ways in which the NHS could improve the service that it provides. New technology offers unprecedented opportunities so that, for example, a doctor in Sheffield can examine a patient in London. New drugs and treatment, such as hormone replacement therapy for brittle bones, offer new hope to many women. New screening techniques can prevent and detect serious diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, and new ways of delivering care to people in their own homes can revolutionise medical treatment.
  Rebuilding the NHS after the Tories will be a challenge, but its staff—the doctors, nurses and all the other staff—have repeatedly shown their commitment to the NHS as a public service. They have shown their ability to deliver high-quality care, despite the Tories. Labour will bring together staff, patients and the community to draw on their views, to create not division but consensus and to plan for the future of health care.
  We will transfer the £1.5 billion that the Government waste on bureaucracy to front-line services—to doctors and nurses and not to accountants and managers. We will end the unfair system whereby treatment is dependent on which GP is purchasing the health care rather than on the clinical needs of the patient. We will end the lottery of long-term nursing care, which means that the care received and the price paid depend on where one lives. Our NHS will concentrate on the patient, not on the costs.
  The NHS has great potential, which Labour in government will unlock. The next general election will decide the future of our health service. Already we have an NHS in which there are hospitals without trolleys, patients without beds and wards without nurses. The Tories have a hidden agenda for a fifth term that will destroy our NHS for good. The Secretary of State's friends give the game away. Roy Lilley, Tory health expert, called the NHS
  "the rump of the remaining nationalised industries and an overburdened bureaucracy".
  380
  David Green, of the Institute for Economic Affairs, said that the NHS
  "breeds a childlike reliance. It has to go."
  The NHS is simply not safe under the Tories.
  In their hearts, members of the Tory party hate the NHS. Its only safeguard is the party that created it—the Labour party.
  5.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the NHS is a great British success story which delivers health care of international quality, which is and will remain available free at the point of use on the basis of medical need and provides excellent value for money for taxpayers; congratulates all NHS staff for their hard work and dedication, particularly during the exceptional period of increased demand for NHS services over recent weeks; welcomes the increasing number of qualified nurses and midwives over the last seventeen years and looks forward to the NHS continuing to flourish under the policies of a Government which has backed its commitment to the service with year-on-year increases in real resources.".
  This week, we have seen a completely new political principle being put into action by the Labour party. It used to be true—there was general recognition of its effectiveness—that the best way to express support for a political colleague was to go on to the media, write an article, give an interview and offer a public endorsement for the sort of policies that we have heard espoused from the Labour Benches. That is, of course, the old-fashioned method.
  This week, the Labour party has found a completely new way to express the warm fraternal solidarity for which it is famous. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has told us that the Labour party has expressed its support this week for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) by remaining silent. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—that not normally taciturn individual—has not been anywhere near a studio this week. There has been no sign of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) or the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). They are all biting their tongues, restraining their natural urge and containing their generous instincts to support the hon. Lady. It has been the chorus of the Hebrew slaves in mime.
  Conservative Members say that the hon. Lady's friends should have supported her. This week, we have seen the irresistible force of parental obligation meeting the immovable object—
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder what you can do to help the House. The Government have clearly sent in the wrong Secretary of State. This is meant to be a health debate, but the Secretary of State does not seem to know that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State's speech has been entirely in order so far.
  Mr. Dorrell: This week, we have seen the irresistible force of parental obligation meeting the immovable object of political correctness. The reason why the hon. Lady is right, and virtually all of her Back-Bench

  381
  colleagues are wrong, is that she has shown by her actions that she endorses the principles and values of a free and open society. That is important in education, and it is equally important in health care.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have yet to hear the word "health", but I have every confidence that it is coming.
  Mr. Dorrell: I fear that noise from Labour Members might have drowned out my point. I said that the principles for which the hon. Lady is standing are just as important in the management and development of the national health service as they are in education and much more broadly in our society. She is standing for the principles of choice and diversity. The sadness in the House this afternoon is that her rhetoric on the health service does not reflect her actions in the education sector.
  We have argued that we need the NHS to deliver a service which empowers local people and allows them to make choices, and which allows the managers who are in charge of trusts to manage the trusts for which they are responsible.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out in interventions, we need a national health service that allows fundholding doctors to make decisions in the interests of their patients and, by so doing, to raise the quality of care throughout the NHS. Those are the principles on which our health policy is built. The hypocrisy of Labour Members—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not intend to give way now.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hypocrisy of Labour Members is demonstrated by the gap that has opened up this week between their rhetoric and their actions. That is what makes my hon. Friends angry.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I am spoiled for choice. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who I believe is an education spokesman.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am indebted to the Secretary of State. He has said a great deal about principles. Will he explain how his Government's principles helped the 38 people who, two weeks ago, were kept overnight on trolleys in Fazakerley hospital in Liverpool, which led to surgical and medical cases being kept in beds in the maternity unit? Is that a reflection of his principles? Where was their choice?
  Mr. Dorrell: I started my speech by pointing out the Government's commitment to the principle of local management in the health service to ensure that the health service responds to patients' needs as they arise. I shall
  382
  now demonstrate how those principles in action have delivered the emergency service, which all national health service patients are entitled to expect.
  The problem for the hon. Member for Peckham is that she is willing to endorse the principles by her actions but not to endorse those principles being put into effect within the national health service.
  Mr. George Howarth: On the Secretary of State's principles on the national health service, will he explain why Fazakerley hospital, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has already referred, is generating so many problems that two or sometimes three people contact me every day to complain about the service there? When I wrote to the Secretary of State and asked him to investigate what was going on there, he refused to conduct an investigation. If he has nothing to hide and there are no problems, why will he not hold an investigation? Is he more content to play politics than to sort out the health service?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am content with a system that vests in local managers and clinicians the power to make decisions in the interests of patients in their area.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: Before I deal with the background to the two points raised about Liverpool, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I tried to make this point to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who would not listen. Does my right hon. Friend accept that all patients in my constituency will shortly be in fundholding practices and that the GPs in charge of those practices will be able to send their patients to the most up-to-date hospital north of Watford, with all the latest facilities, including a good day hospital that carries out cataract and varicose vein operations? Fewer hospital beds will be needed because the hospital has all the latest equipment, which is as good as anywhere in Europe.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The fundholding system benefiting her constituents would be under threat if the hon. Member for Peckham put into effect her rhetoric on the national health service, which is in sharp distinction from her actions in her own family.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all doctors must take the Hippocratic oath? Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has taken that to heart, but misunderstood it?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes his point compellingly. What makes Conservative Members angry is the distinction between what Labour Members say and what they do.
  I shall outline the background to the stress and pressure on the emergency services, which we have seen over the past few weeks.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: What I am about to say lies behind all the questions that Opposition Members have asked me. If it does not answer their questions, I shall give way further.

  383
  Over the past two months, there has been an unprecedented peak in the emergency work load placed on the NHS emergency services. I can illustrate that simply by a few facts: in the week commencing 8 January, emergency admissions in the city of Birmingham rose by 35 per cent. on the normal seasonal average; in Shrewsbury, they were 29 per cent. above the normal seasonal level; and in Winchester they were 50 per cent. above the normal seasonal level. So, throughout the health service, since the middle of November, there have been examples of unprecedented peaks in the emergency work load. The best overall measure was that, in the whole of London in December 1995, emergency calls increased by 11 per cent. compared with December 1994.
  The background against which this debate takes place is of an unprecedented increase in the NHS's emergency work load. The fact that the hon. Member for Peckham does not like to face is that the more flexible local management in the health service that she likes to denigrate has responded to that increase and ensured that, in the overwhelming Majority of cases, it has been met. That has been done by increasing the bed space available to the emergency services. She decries that and says that a hospital that is not using all its beds should leave beds closed rather than reopen them to absorb the emergency work load. New bed space has been opened throughout the health service and existing bed space has been redesignated to ensure that the emergency work load is met.
  The position is clear throughout the country: in Consett, 26 beds; in Sunderland, 26 beds; in Grimsby, a whole ward; in the Good Hope hospital, 39 beds; in the West Middlesex hospital, 12 beds; in Newham general hospital, two wards creating 32 beds. Furthermore, not just new bed space is being created but existing bed space is being redesignated to ensure that the emergency work load is met. The Birmingham Heartlands hospital has 60 extra beds from that source and in the North Staffordshire trust, 70 surgical beds have been redesignated as medical to meet the emergency demand.
  The hon. Member for Peckham is therefore right to identify an increase in the health service's emergency work load, but she is profoundly wrong to denigrate the management system that has ensured that the health service has responded to that increase in emergency work load and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, delivered the emergency service that NHS patients need.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The local flexibility to which the Secretary of State referred operates at the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency. One of my constituents, a cancer patient, was given a day for admittance to the hospital but his admittance was cancelled at 5 o'clock on the day that he was due to go in. He went in one day later and went through the entire pre-operation medical procedures, only to be told that the operation had been cancelled. At that time, the hospital could not give him an alternative date. Instead, it has allowed him to go home every day but he must return to the hospital at 6 o'clock in the evening. He believes, and I have had that belief confirmed by others, that during his absence his bed is used. That is not redesignation of beds but hot bedding.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is well known that, if an hon. Member wants a Minister to examine a specific case, he or she will
  384
  do so. I shall not seek to respond off the cuff to a specific case. I remind the House that, over the past two months, the national health service has done what it is there to do: treat priority cases first. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it has delivered the emergency service that we want to see.
  Sir John Gorst: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile all that he has said and the principles that he correctly outlined at the beginning of his speech with the intention to close the accident and emergency unit in my constituency and replace it with a miserable alternative that is of no consequence when compared to the original?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend knows that we are currently engaged in consultation on the shape of services to be delivered at Edgware hospital in the future, and part of a state-of-the-art accident and emergency service for his constituents will be delivered through Edgware hospital. The precise nature of the total service to be delivered at Edgware is the subject of current consultation.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way to one of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
  Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that a perfect example of his point about the increase in treatment figures and in the accident and emergency figures is Northwick Park hospital—a big district general hospital shared by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)—where the figures have risen enormously recently, but where treatment has improved, as all of its patients say, without any reasoned exception?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that has been the overwhelming experience of patients of the emergency services of the NHS. I must move on, because the hon. Member for Peckham said in response to my arguments—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: Later. The hon. Lady said that the shift to meet the emergency work load has led to a reduced service for those on elective waiting lists, with the result—she claims—that there has been an increase in the proportion of elective surgery done by the private sector. I have heard her make that claim several times since I took up my present responsibilities, so I have had it examined. I have looked at the evidence to see whether it is true that there has been a dramatic increase in the share of elective surgery conducted in the private sector.
  The fact is that, in the past 14 years, the share of elective surgery done in this country on people resident in this country by the private sector has risen from 14 per

  385
  cent. of the total to 15.3 per cent. of the total—an increase of 1.3 percentage points. The House will not recognise from that statistic the rhetoric of the hon. Lady.
  That brings me to another element of the choice and diversity for which the hon. Lady has made herself famous this week—the application of that principle within the NHS. Many of my hon. Friends have raised the issue of GP fundholding, and they are right to do so. The Government have made it clear that we are determined to develop the primary health care service of the NHS because—[Interruption.] Opposition Members appear to have lost interest in the NHS. So much for their passionate interest in the development of primary care in the health service. They seem to be more interested in their private internal bickering. No doubt they are all discussing the performance of the hon. Member for Peckham. We know from the lunchtime news what Labour Members think of her performance, and we can see them all plotting their next move in the battles that are going on within the Labour party.
  When Opposition Members have concluded their private discussions, perhaps they would like to turn their attention for a moment to the future of the NHS and the delivery of high-quality primary health care. The fundholding system has been described by the chairman of the Socialist Health Association, Julian LeGrand, as the biggest success story of the health service reforms. Perhaps more tellingly, the hon. Member for Peckham's predecessor as Opposition health spokesman, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), went to the National Association of Fund Holding Practices—
  Mr. Henry McLeish: This is old hat.
  Mr. Dorrell: Old hat? This happened last October. How long does a policy last in the Labour party? Last October, the right hon. Member for Derby, South went to the National Association of Fund Holding Practices conference, and thought that she had better curry favour from the audience. She said that Labour understood and welcomed the advances fundholding has brought to many patients. The hon. Member for Peckham has shown us this week that she thinks services should be determined by—in her case—the interests of the son. I would argue that the same principle should apply to the patient.
  There is, in the words of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, clear evidence that fundholding brings benefits to patients. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Peckham how she justifies her policy of replacing fundholding. How can a party which espouses the true interests of patients be committed to sweeping away a system that its own previous health spokesman has recognised serves the interests of patients?
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) went on to say that she hoped that fundholding would be abolished in the first year of a Labour Government? Does that still stand?
  Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Member for Derby, South's line on fundholding was reminiscent of the line taken by Anthony Crosland on selective schools. Her line was, "We shall get rid of fundholding." The hon. Member for Peckham's words, however, are slightly more
  386
  honeyed. She says, "We shall replace fundholding." What does that mean? The patients of fundholding practices—they will make up more than half of the patients in the NHS this April—want to know what the hon. Lady would do, were they ever misguided enough to put her in charge of the NHS.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Fundholding has brought immense benefits to the patients in the large village of Poynton in the north of my constituency. I had the privilege to open a new medical centre there that provides, on the doorstep of patients, facilities that hitherto would not have been available and for which local people would have to have gone to the district general hospital. The fundholding practice is working closely with the district general hospital and is providing additional, technologically advanced services right on the doorstep of patients.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. He quotes a good example where service has been enhanced, and that has happened not just in the practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend, but across the NHS. When one fundholding practice makes such a breakthrough, others—fundholders and non-fundholders—want to apply the same principles.
  I said that I applaud the hon. Member for Peckham's endorsement of the principles of choice and diversity, and so I do. What I deplore is double standards and two-facedness. This week, the hypocrisy of the Opposition has been exposed. The hypocrisy of choosing selection for themselves while denying that right to others is just the tip of the iceberg. The hon. Lady can be excused for that, but not for the other hypocrisies for which she is personally responsible—the hypocrisy of talking about underfunding, while promising no more money; the hypocrisy of paying tribute to fundholders, while maintaining a commitment to abolish them; the hypocrisy of bewailing management costs, while voting against the abolition of regional health authorities; the hypocrisy of supporting a health authority's right to choose where to commission health care, while arguing that the internal market is wrong; the hypocrisy of arguing that the private finance initiative is right in principle, while arguing that it represents the privatisation of the health service.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: On the question of hypocrisy, the Secretary of State says that he is to launch an attack on bureaucracy in the health service. Can he tell the House why, compared with five years ago, there are 50,000 fewer nurses and 18,000 more administrators?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am getting rather fed up with people taking statistics that they know to be dishonest and misrepresenting them—
  Mr. Byers: Answer the question!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) asked a question—he should stay silent and wait for the answer. That is a courtesy of the House. We need ordinary and decent manners, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman kept quiet.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the figures that he quotes rely for their effect on, first,

  387
  ignoring the build-up of practice nurses in general practices, and secondly, pretending that nurses in Project 2000 are not in training and therefore do not count. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, like-for-like comparison shows not a cut, but an increase in the nursing work force.
  It has not escaped notice that the loudest cheer this week was that for the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) in the Members' Dining Room on Monday night. The simple reason for that is that he spoke for the majority of Labour Members. Those Members are now discovering what stakeholding means for them. It means what the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said on the lunchtime news about the parliamentary Labour party meeting this morning:
  "We called the meeting. Let us hear the opinion of the parliamentary Labour party.
  "He might have added, "and then ignore it." Labour Members are discovering precisely what stakeholding means for them. It means do what Tony says. "Get up," says Tony, and they get up; when Tony says, "Sit down," they sit down; when Tony says, "Turn right," they turn right and when Tony says, "Turn left," they turn left. Where once there was commitment and passion there is now simply the grin on the face of the leader—a leader who likes to talk about standards in public life.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we debating the health service or the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the health service.
  Mr. Dorrell: We are indeed debating the health service.
  I made the mistake of assuming that the leader of the Labour party was interested in the future of the national health service. It is to him that the difficult questions must how be addressed. He cannot hide behind the hon. Member for Peckham. What we need to know from the leader of the Labour party is whether he will authorise more money for the NHS. Will he support choice and diversity in general practice? Will he wind up fundholding in general practice?
  Mr. David Shaw: Hypocrite.
  Mr. Dorrell: Will he support local managers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) suggest that an hon. Member was a hypocrite?
  Mr. Shaw: I would not want to suggest that at all; it must have been a mistake.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member did say that. Is the hon. Member withdrawing that remark here and now?
  Mr. Shaw: I certainly would withdraw it if you thought I said it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Member say it. Does the hon. Member withdraw it or not?
  Mr. Shaw: I certainly shall withdraw anything that you are not happy with, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member withdraw the word I heard him say—that the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Shaw: I do—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member withdraw his comment that the Leader of the Opposition was a hypocrite? Does the hon. Member withdraw that?
  Mr. Shaw: I withdraw it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Dorrell: The questions remain for those on the Opposition Front Bench and most importantly for the leader of the Labour party. Those questions require him to face one way. They require him to convert soft-focus rhetoric into hard commitments. If he fails to do so, we must draw the conclusion that warm words are simply hot air. Today, another opportunity to do that has passed. Yet again, Labour has failed the test.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I was somewhat disappointed that the Secretary of State spent so little time talking about the health service. I now realise why it is that more and more people within the NHS—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising the Chair. The whole of the Secretary of State's speech was about the health service.
  Mr. Galbraith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I now realise why fewer and fewer people in the NHS listen to the Secretary of State. I was also disappointed that once again he raised the issue of choice under the Government as a result of their changes. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that, before the Government changes, any doctor, be it a general practitioner or a hospital consultant, working anywhere in the health service, could send any patient anywhere in the United Kingdom at any time.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): That was the theory.
  Mr. Galbraith: That was the practical reality. That fact is so. That is no longer the reality and I wish that the Secretary of State would stop going on and on about choice within the NHS.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is simply not what happened in fact. For years and years, all hon. Members who represented Leeds, including Opposition Members, complained bitterly about how Leeds general infirmary was swamped by patients. They were sent to it from all over the area, to the point where our constituents in Leeds

  389
  could not get treatment at our hospital. The hospital received no financial recompense for that. That is not the case now. One thing is for certain; the Labour party will not do any better than the Conservative Government, who, in the past three years, have raised the capital spending of LGI from £8 million to £20 million.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman reinforced my point by saying that people came from all over to his hospital. That reinforces my argument that choice always existed. Nowadays choice does not exist; one goes to where the contract is made. That is the reality.
  Being a good Presbyterian, I want to start my speech today with a text from the Secretary of State. In The Guardian on 11 January he was reported as saying:
  "It is no good continuing to provide treatment which is out of date, nor rushing to carry out new procedures before they have been clinically evaluated."
  That is an appropriate text, to which I shall return partly in relation to the changes within the NHS. I should like to start by relating it to beta interferon, once again. That drug is at the heart of much of the controversy in the NHS—the controversy does not specifically relate to the drug but concerns treatment rationing and effective treatment.
  When the right hon. Gentleman has considered the subject before, he has sought to make a distinction between rationing and non-use of ineffective treatments. I am extremely happy that he has done so, because he has probably read some of my speeches on the matter.
  In The Herald of Glasgow, of 5 October, I discussed the rationing of health care. I said that the definition of rationing was important and that rationing meant
  "the denial to a patient of treatment that would benefit their physical or mental health, treatment the patient wishes to have and which, in the doctor's judgment, is considered to be medically appropriate. Unnecessary treatment, by which I mean treatment that is of no benefit to the patient, is not included within this definition."
  It is therefore not indicated—that means, to requote the Secretary of State, one should not rush
  "to carry out new procedures before they have been clinically evaluated."
  In that respect, and given the Minister's view, I am really surprised that he is not taking a harder line on the handling of the drug beta interferon.
  Let me explain briefly that beta interferon has been put forward as a treatment for multiple sclerosis—a debilitating disorder for which there are really no effective treatments. It is a disease that in part is considered possibly related to the immune system and slow viruses. One of the possible treatments put forward recently has been beta interferon.
  The drug has been extensively evaluated, and as a result two studies were reported. The first of those appeared in an expedited publication in Neurology in 1993, volume 43, 655–81. A follow-up study was published in Neurology in 1995, volume 45, 1277–85. Those studies have been used as justification for the prescription of beta interferon—an extremely expensive drug. Those studies are what are known as phase 2 trials—a term that I am sure the Minister understands. Those trials do not use definitive end points but are studies used for looking at dose regimes and possible efficacy. They do not prove the worth or value of any treatment. They use surrogate end points such as remission rates and nuclear magnetic resonance scanning and different types of imaging of the brain.
  390
  Those phase 2 trials showed that, as a result of the drug, there may be an improvement, initially, in the remission rate, or at least a reduction in the exacerbation rate, but that it has no effect on disability at any stage. It is also a stage 2 trial and it is therefore not surprising that the authors, in their 1995 paper, conclude that their results do
  "not establish an effect…in limiting progression of disability. This study was not originally powered to demonstrate a treatment effect on disease progression. At these levels of disability, more patients or longer follow-up, or both, would be required. Accordingly, additional clinical trials will be necessary to evaluate the role of IFNB in preventing disability."
  It is a drug of unproven value.
  I return to the Minister's comment that we should not rush to carry out new procedures before they have been clinically evaluated. This is an expensive drug that has not been clinically evaluated. We should not rush into allowing its general use in the national health service.
  I have raised that point before with the Secretary of State. He says, as do Scottish Office Ministers, that such matters should be decided locally. That is their first line, but it is a dangerous road to go down. The Secretary of State himself recognises that fact; The Independent on 9 January reported his speech to the Manchester business school in which he made the point that there should not be variations in treatment and practice in different areas. He said:
  "We must recognise, in the first instance, that this is a national health service"
  and prevent variations. I agree. Guidance on the matter must come from the centre. That principle should apply to all treatments in the national health service.
  It is not appropriate for separate authorities to make differing decisions about treatment or its allocation. It is not appropriate that people who live on one side of a street are deemed to need treatment but that people who live on the other side are not. The system to decide whether treatment is necessary must be national.
  The Secretary of State will say that different areas must decide on their own priorities. If an area requires increased resources for some disease such as, in my area, carcinoma bronchus ischaemic heart disease, it requires additional resources and not to start cutting back on other necessary treatments. I implore the Minister to consider the matter and give national guidelines.
  The Secretary of State will also say that doctors must be left to make their clinical judgments. I accept that. On a day-to-day, face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball basis, doctors should make clinical judgments. However, we do not give doctors total freedom in their clinical judgment. That has never been appropriate and has never been the case. When cardiac surgery came in, we did not make it universally available to anyone who wanted it. It was evaluated nationally and properly. When it became clear that it was of use, we set up, using national guidelines, units throughout the country. That is the way forward.
  Beta interferon is a test of the way in which the NHS works at its best. In other words, we respond to need; we evaluate that need; consider the methods of dealing with it; and, if a treatment is shown to have an effect on that need, we provide it. We must not get into the situation that exists in the United States, where the system is demand led. There, a drug, merely because it has become available and is being pushed by a drug company, suddenly acquires a demand and is prescribed all over the place. The NHS faces a test

  391
  with beta interferon to ensure that it is prescribed only if it is shown to be effective. We should not duck that through doctor's choice or local choice. It is a decision that only the Government can make.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. and technically qualified Friend. How can we deal with people who suffer from dreadful illnesses such as multiple sclerosis who are hoping for some remedy? I have seen a great deal of written information that seemed to make claims for beta interferon, but he says that they have not been substantiated by tests. How can we get over the problem of information being published in what seems to be a learned way when it is not true?
  Mr. Galbraith: In this case, we can get over it by allowing it to be prescribed only in the context of a clinical trial. The authors of the Neurology study said that the drug required further study. That would mean a phase 3 study which would be a proper double-blind, crossover controlled trial with proper end-point evaluations. If it were done in that way, we would discover whether the drug was effective. That is the way forward.
  The Secretary of State realises that that is part of what is known in the current phrase as evidence-based medicine. Most people thought that we have always had evidence-based medicine and that it was good medicine. Not everyone practised it; some people practised bad medicine. Evidence-based medicine is not new. If we are to use evidence-based medicine in clinical practice, we must use it in managerial practice in the national health service. We have singularly failed to do that, and it has led, in large measure, to the beds crisis that has occurred this winter.
  The Minister pretends that somehow the beds problem is different. Every year, from time to time, there are beds crises in the NHS. The Minister maintains that it is worse this year than it has been in others. I am not sure about that. I am always wary of figures. Patients get redesignated and reclassified. I have been around several hospitals and I have seen no greater crisis than usual. There simply were not enough beds available.
  That is not a problem by which we should have been surprised. Everyone predicted it because, in making managerial decisions, we had not considered the evidence properly and had made too many snap judgments. We should not have had a winter crisis, because hospitals are usually especially quiet at that time. Patients are decanted from beds over the holiday period and are not taken in for elective procedures. There ought to have been plenty of beds, yet we failed patients. We should examine the reasons behind that. We have closed far too many beds—a decision that was based on a model of bed numbers that was flawed and never subject to decent analysis but propagated on the one principle that we must close beds. Anything that challenged that assumption was ignored.
  It is proper to consider how we can improve the model. That is happening in the Scottish Office and I hope that the Secretary of State will undertake to consider it for the whole United Kingdom. Let me suggest some of the things that went wrong. We have reached the stage where there are not enough beds. It is no good talking about redesignation and having bed managers.
  392
  Please save us from Philip Hunt of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts who came on radio to say that the way to solve the problem of the lack of beds was to appoint another manager. That is the last thing that we need. We need another manager like we need a hole in the head. We need someone to examine the problem. Does the Secretary of State realise what redesignation of beds means? It involves moving patients around the hospital over two or three days. They are often taken out of the ward in the middle of night and placed elsewhere. That is bad medicine for patients and doctors.
  Let us return to the possible causes of the mistake with the beds. First, we did not properly take account of the demographic shift and the fact that older patients suffer more disease. Those diseases add to the number of emergencies.
  Secondly, we did not take account of the effect that community care would have on emergency admissions. The principle of community care is right; I am not going to challenge that. However, many people in care in the community fall sick who would previously have fallen sick in hospital beds, where they were attended by surgeons and physicians in their hospitals and managed in their beds. Now, however, those people present at hospitals as emergencies, which is another factor that was not taken into consideration in the bed model.
  The third factor that was not taken into consideration was early discharge from hospitals. The re-admission rate was simply not included in the calculation.
  Mr. Malone: There is no evidence for that.
  Mr. Galbraith: I hear the Minister of State saying that there is no evidence for that, but I should like him to present me with the facts.
  I am not opposed to early discharge from hospital, which is correct and proper, but we must consider the re-admission rate that is associated with it.
  The fourth factor that was not taken into account was the changing nature of the practice of medicine. In the past, myocardial infarctions and strokes could be managed at home; now they are not and, instead, the patient is taken to hospital. We should have taken all those factors into account.
  The current crisis has come about not because of a lack of emergency beds but because of a lack of beds generally. In our acute strategies, we forgot to take into account all the necessary procedures. There is a similar shortage of intensive care beds. That shortage is not simply due to the fact that there are too few intensive care beds; there are too few acute beds. The way to free an intensive care bed is to move its occupier into a second-line bed. If there are no second-line beds, the patient cannot be transferred from the intensive care unit to a second-line bed. We must reappraise the number of beds; we cannot continue to close them.
  The Government should have a moratorium on all bed closures until we reconsider the bed model and decide on the number of beds in the national health service. In that period, we should undertake a proper study in which we listen to everyone involved and base our decisions on evidence, and only evidence. We shall not base our decision on any prejudice, on managerial diktat or simply on financial grounds. We shall make our decision on the

  393
  evidence. If evidence is good for clinical practice, it is good for every practice in the NHS and we should follow it through to its limit.
  6.1 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I have been taking part in health debates for the past 20 years or so. The speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was one of the nastiest speeches on health that I have heard during those 20 years. When the hon. Lady says that the national health service is being "torn limb from limb" by this Government, she is talking the most contemptible nonsense—what is more, she knows it. The hon. Lady's allegation that the health service is being "privatised" and sold off to the private sector is ludicrous, and known to be ludicrous.
  The hon. Lady has succeeded in showing us something else entirely: that the words of the Labour party do not match up to its action—its present action, its action when it was in power or future action that it might take if it were in power. I talk specifically about health, as I believe strongly that the sort of attack the hon. Lady pursued on the Government this afternoon was not only inaccurate, but hypocritical.
  When we debate health, the public are not impressed when the political words do not meet the needs. The pubic want frankness about health care, and a recognition of the problems encountered in any health service system. The public want an explanation of constructive policies. The public wanted more this afternoon than the same depressing mixture of scare and stridency that we received. All we were given was the unappetising sight of the hon. Lady trying to work her passage back into her own political party.
  The hon. Lady was trying, once more, to exploit the health issue. Despite the denials over the past 15 years by successive Secretaries of State for Health, the hon. Lady attempted to suggest that the Conservative party wants to privatise the health service. Attacked for her own double standards, she ascribes double standards to others. I reject that claim, and I return to the division between the Labour party's words and its actions. Let us compare the words that the Labour party now uses on health with the action that it took when it was in power.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has strolled in. I shall not give way to him, as he has not listened to the argument—I doubt whether it will affect his argument much, but it affects the House.
  I accept that today there are problems involving the accident and emergency units and the demand they face. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State know, I have raised that issue in the House, as well as the subject of the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield, to which I shall turn in a moment, as it was raised by the hon. Member for Peckham. I have made criticisms of the current position, and I have welcomed the action that has been taken—including the creation of new operating theatres and the modernisation of the unit. I hope that, in due course, there will be a new admissions unit, provided by the Government.
  394
  When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Lady, she appeared to cast doubt on the importance being set on that issue at the Good Hope hospital. She quoted a few words from what Tom Dean, the chief executive at Good Hope, had said. As it happens, I have with me the press statement that Tom Dean issued on 12 January, when the Secretary of State and I were at the hospital. The Secretary of State will confirm that his words were not part of our press release, but his own.
  The headline in the press release is "More beds opening at Good Hope". It continues:
  "Tom Dean…said: 'We are continuing to take positive steps to deal with the rise in emergency medical admissions by opening more beds on various wards at Good Hope.
  'Thanks to our recruitment drive for more nurses, we have been able to open another 18 medical beds and six surgical beds this week.
  'Building on the recruitment drive, we expect to open a further 39 beds next month to assist with meeting the emergency needs and to help us catch up on non-urgent surgery.
  'We are looking at ways of increasing yet further our operating lists, particularly for those patients for whom day case surgery is appropriate."
  That press release gives the flavour of what Good Hope hospital and its chief executive seek to do much more than the selective couple of words used by the shadow Secretary of State for Health. We shall want to see the full letter, from which she took just three or four words.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that I find it difficult to take the implication or charge that came through in the hon. Lady's speech this afternoon—that the problems of the health service and of the Good Hope hospital have all emerged during the lifetime of the Conservative Government. Anyone who knows the position knows that that is not true.
  In the 21 years that I have been Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield, the most agonising health meeting that I have attended—and that I ever hope to attend—was when a consultant at the hospital gathered together his entire waiting list in a local hall to confront the authorities. The authorities that he confronted to protest about waiting lists were not the Conservative Government, but the last Labour Government.
  The biggest problem we have faced in the past 21 years in Sutton Coldfield has been what happened over the much-needed hospital buildings. Those buildings were cancelled because of the capital cuts made by the last Labour Government, which were brought about by the economic crisis. It is all very well to call—as the motion does—for new beds to be opened, but if the Labour party's practice had prevailed, there would have been no question of bringing back beds, because those beds would never have existed. The wards would not have been built. The Conservative Government built the wards in Good Hope hospital.
  That is only one local hospital, but it illustrates the general position. Those of us who remember the health policies of the last Labour Government remember perfectly well that their actions did not remotely match the words that Labour Members use today.
  What about future action? I listened to what the hon. Member for Peckham said this afternoon, and I listened to her in Birmingham town hall in a debate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and many other people, as it happened—and an audience of about

  395
  1,000 people. Naturally, the hon. Lady was asked about resources. The only answer she gave was one similar to that which she gave this afternoon—an assault on managers in the health service.
  I am the last person to defend bureaucracy. Indeed, I believe that removing the regional health layer, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing, is probably the best way of tackling bureaucracy. Although I oppose bureaucracy, I am emphatically in favour of strong management.
  The general managers that I introduced in the 1980s, following the report of the late Roy Griffiths, were the real start of the health reforms of the present Government. I shall tell the House why those reforms were important.
  In the summer of 1984, there was an outbreak of food poisoning at the Stanley Royd hospital near Wakefield. Perhaps one or two hon. Members remember it. It affected more than 800 elderly patients, and caused 19 deaths. I appointed a public inquiry into the outbreak, and the crucial message that came back was that we needed more hands-on management.
  There was a gulf between those who were meant to be in charge and those who were carrying out the work. According to the report, the so-called managers at the time
  "passed through rather than spent time in the kitchen".
  In other words, what were needed were managers who took responsibility for securing the best service for the patients and who could be held to account if there was failure. That was the overwhelming logic of the Griffiths report.
  At the time, we were opposed all the way by the Labour party on that proposal. We were told that the health service was different from business, and therefore did not need the benefits of management techniques that had been developed in business and in industry.
  Of course the delivery of health care is different from producing cars or selling food, but there are very many common problems that any manager shares. He must be concerned with the quality of service and productivity. He must motivate and involve all his staff, and he must live within his budget. The health service should not be run in any way on a commercial basis, but it certainly must be run in a businesslike way, because that is the sensible way to manage a service of that size.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman's experience leads him to the conclusion that, however much one might devolve management, the only person publicly accountable by election for the health service in this country is the Secretary of State, so it is the Secretary of State who ultimately must ensure that, when the health service is needed, for example to respond to emergencies, the services are provided—the buck stops there, not with the local management.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The buck ultimately does stop with the Secretary of State. As someone who was Secretary of State for six years, which I believe is longer than most, I bear the scars of the buck stopping with the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: You can see them.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Indeed you can.
  396
  I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the buck stops with the Secretary of State, but, before general managers were introduced, we had the totally unsatisfactory position in which, all too often, no one was in charge at the health authority level or the hospital level. That is not the way to run anything, let alone a health service as important as ours.
  I predict with certainty that, if by some mischance there were a Labour Government, they would not abolish general managers. Labour Members have opposed them, but they would continue with them, because no serious figure inside or outside the health service wants us to return to the old system.
  It is not only in the past or the future that the words of members of the Labour party do not match their actions. The Secretary of State was at the Good Hope hospital when it was announced that more beds were being made available. However—this really is an argument for the hon. Member for Peckham—a couple of miles away, in another part of Sutton Coldfield, the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council is closing altogether a 40-bedded, purpose-built residential home for old people, the Frances Withers home. It is transferring to other accommodation, if it can, residents aged, on average, in their late 80s and 90s.
  The read-across from that is quite clear. Elderly people account for more than 40 per cent. of the cost of the national health service. If the council takes such facilities out of operation, we all know what will happen—sooner or later, the strain will be taken by the national health service.
  I am not the only one who opposes that policy. It is opposed by the residents, it is opposed by the relations of the residents, and, perhaps most vociferously of all, it is opposed by the trade union Unison on behalf of the staff.
  Why is the home being closed? Birmingham city council has a budget of about £1.2 billion. It spends almost £190 million on social services, yet it cannot find a small cost to keep that home open. It has wasted millions of pounds—there is no doubt about that—on maladministration in the housing benefit system. It is unable to find the modest resources necessary to keep open a purpose-built home, built only 20 years ago, with good single rooms for residents, an exceptionally quiet and safe position, and an excellent sheltered garden, which is in every respect an excellent place for elderly people.
  I find the arguments for that policy extraordinary. The council says that, together, Sutton Coldfield and Erdington constituencies have the second greatest provision of residential accommodation in the city of Birmingham, and that has become an argument for closing down the home. The council cites the cost of refurbishing the home, yet—I toured the home myself again last Friday—there is considerable doubt whether any refurbishment is required.
  The television cameras and the media have camped outside Good Hope hospital, and I make no complaint of that. I have, as the Secretary of State knows, been outspoken on behalf of my local hospital. I hope that the same television cameras will portray what is happening in the Frances Withers home. I hope that they will portray a home being broken up. I hope—
  Mr. Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way, as I am just ending.
  I hope that the cameras will portray how old people are being transferred from one part of the city to another, often far from their relations. I hope that they will portray the way in which a purpose-built home is being vacated. Let no one ever forget that that policy is being instituted and carried out by a Labour-controlled council.
  So the hon. Member for Peckham—
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
  If the hon. Member for Peckham wanted to interrupt me, she might have remained in the Chamber. I regret very much that she has not done so.
  The hon. Member for Peckham has succeeded in opening a debate. It may not be the debate that she intended to open in the glad morn of last Wednesday, when the subject was decided for today's debate. The debate that she has opened is about the difference between the Labour party's words and its actions. Conservative Members look forward with enthusiasm to joining that debate.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The first two speeches in the debate today have shed much heat but very little light on the subject. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) moved the Opposition motion on the national health service. It contains some good ideas, including the suggestion that each health authority should nominate a person to identify bed shortages, that there should be a regular report on bed numbers, and that national guidelines should be introduced to clarify who pays for continuing care. The motion is strong, according to the hon. Lady's own diagnosis, but we know that we seek a diagnosis only in the hope that we shall receive a prescription, and the hon. Lady certainly offered very little in that regard.
  The Opposition have many questions to answer. For example, the hon. Lady referred to the difficulty that people have securing dental treatment, but she did not tell us whether Labour is committed to restoring free dental checks. The hon. Lady and her colleagues regularly refer to the difficulties facing opticians, but she did not announce that the Labour party is committed to providing free eye tests. The Opposition complain every year when prescription charges increase, but they never confirm that they would freeze or reduce those charges.
  The Secretary of State is correct when he says that we do not know whether the Opposition are for or against fundholding, the private finance initiative or increased money for the health service. Until Labour Members answer those questions, there will be no prescription—which is always more difficult to provide than a diagnosis.
  The Secretary of State conceded that the health service has experienced some problems recently. He conceded that the demands on the health service have increased during the winter months, but he did not tell us whether the health service is coping with that demand, and he certainly did not tell us how he will ensure that it copes
  398
  in the future. The Government amendment congratulates NHS staff on their hard work and dedication. The staff are certainly working hard, but I intend to cite some facts which show that they are not very happy about their status or about the work they are asked to perform.
  The number of practitioners has increased in some areas, but decreased in others. In some areas, there is a dearth of people who are ready and willing to do the necessary work. The Government's figures show that their commitment to a year-on-year increase in real resources—we have debated the subject twice in this place in the past few months—will be barely attainable in future years.
  The health service needs to develop three fundamentals in order to secure its future. It needs a working structure which will hold the health service together; it needs adequate funding to do the job; and it must be run effectively in order to improve staff morale. Although we do not need many further significant administrative changes within the health service, many areas that are clearly unsatisfactory could be vastly improved without uprooting or disrupting the service as a whole.
  For example, from April we shall have regional outposts and regional civil servants, but no regional health authorities. The Liberal Democrats have long argued against separate regional health authorities. We believe that elected regional representatives should operate the strategy that determines the health service at a regional level. At a local level, the health authorities are appointed by the Secretary of State. That is not a democratic process, and my party has now agreed that health commissioning should be carried out by local government, in the same way as it carries out the commissioning and practice of social services.
  Change is necessary in order to democratise the health service. I make it clear to the Minister that that does not mean any alteration in the purchaser-provider split; nor does it signal an end to fundholding. We believe that everyone should be a stakeholder in the fundholding and a partner who is able to buy the service—
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Barmy.
  Mr. Hughes: It is not barmy, and it is not a new idea. It has been advocated for a long time by eminent people on both sides of the House, and by others such as J. K. Galbraith.
  Having improved the structure of the NHS, we must then address the question of funding. Whatever the complex causes may be, the perception on the ground is that the funding and resource needs of the health service cannot be met only by the redistribution of resources within the service. It is not sufficient to cut the high salaries and the perks of managers, although that should be done. It is not sufficient simply to reduce the number of managers and put more staff on the front line, although that must occur also. The health service has a more fundamental need, as has been evidenced in the past few weeks by a shortage of doctors, nurses and support staff.
  Elements of the recent crisis have been publicised in the newspapers, which carried stories about people being flown around the country in search of hospital beds—in one case, it involved an airman from the east coast. It was clear that emergency services were not available. I was told at the beginning of the week that Guy's hospital in my constituency needs 40 intensive care nurses.

  399
  In practices all over the country, people are being told that the resources are simply not available, and that they cannot be recruited.
  Mr. Hayes: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is totally sincere. However, I refer him to his suggestion that persons elected from local authorities should serve on health authorities and trust boards. That idea was declared unworkable by Nye Bevan, and the leaked document describes it as "barmy". I suspect that it was declared unworkable and barmy because, under the present system of appointment—there are many Labour and Liberal Democrat as well as Conservative appointees—party politics is buried once the parties are around the table taking decisions. That is good for health care.
  Mr. Hughes: I know that the argument is not cut and dried. No one wants to see health authority policy hijacked for party political aims. I shall conclude my speech by suggesting how we can behave slightly more intelligently in that area than we have of late. We should not shout at each other across the Floor of the House. The people are not well served by party political appointees who seek to advance an imperfect manifesto. No one has the benefit of complete wisdom.
  However, I do not accept that no one should be elected, and that all members should be appointed by the Government. Of course they will appoint people of different political persuasions in order to make it appear a balanced exercise, but at the same time they will continue to appoint their own people and those who are politically neutral. That gives the Secretary of State enormous power and leads to a lack of accountability to the patients, which is entirely inadequate in the case of a public service. The service is funded with taxpayers' money, and people expect to have some control over that expenditure.
  Many problems remain in the family doctor service, including inadequate out-of-hours service and inadequate deputising services in many areas. Doctors cannot be recruited in many urban areas, and the quality of doctors is also an issue. People often find it difficult to register with a doctor, and they may be thrown off a doctor's list even though they have not found a replacement GP. We have not yet resolved the controversial issue of how often doctors should be allowed to dispense.
  Doctors certainly believe that they are under increasing pressure. My colleagues have surveyed doctors around the country, and I shall refer to the views of doctors in three areas. My colleagues in Hazel Grove—an area south of Manchester, which I know well—conducted a survey of general practitioners in the autumn, and discovered that 70 per cent. of those who replied wanted to change profession or take early retirement. Eighty per cent. of GPs said that they were unhappy with the state of their profession.
  Colleagues in Cornwall made a similar survey, and in Devon morale among GPs was so low that new jobs in Torbay are attracting only two out of three applications, compared with 40 out of 50 a few years ago. In Cornwall, the county of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), the local medical council chairman, Dr. Andy Stewart, said in response to a survey by the hon. Gentleman's prospective Liberal Democrat opponent,
  400
  Terry Jones, that 20 out of 320 GPs surveyed were receiving psychiatric care because of the stress caused by long hours and other work-related problems.
  My colleague in Liverpool, who is a prospective candidate, also undertook a survey.
  Mr. Malone: Was it a similar survey?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course, and it comprised straightforward questions. I shall willingly show the Minister the results. When all the results are collected, I will let him have those because the issue is hugely important. Thirty per cent. of Liverpool's doctors are thinking of earlier retirement. Morale among GPs at the front line of the health service is severely low; that bodes ill for the future unless immediate action is taken to remedy it.
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: I hope that the survey by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in my constituency had slightly more intellectual and numerate rigour than the Liberal Democrat survey in Devon and Cornwall. Under scrutiny in a debate in this Chamber only a few weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats had to accept that the response rate barely bordered on 25 per cent.
  Mr. Hughes: I am perfectly happy to deal with the figures. I remember that debate, and I have read it. Various surveys have been undertaken in large areas, if not throughout the country. The response rate varied. In some places it was one quarter, and in others well over 50 per cent. There is no secret—I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. I hope that he shares my concern that the trend, which is identical or similar throughout, is for large numbers of general practitioners to say that they are overworked, over-stressed and thinking of retiring early, and cannot recruit to their practices.
  A practice just around the corner from my house is having great difficulty recruiting. I asked another practice in my constituency today, so that I could not be accused of giving outdated information. It stated that it is under huge pressure because of lack of resources. It was told that there would be adequate resources for care in the community, but there are not.
  The practice informed me, for example, about a lack of bathing facilities and care assistants. It knew of more than one person who has been waiting three years for a bath seat. Standards of care are often considerably reduced because there are not the people to deliver them.
  I do not rejoice in that situation, but state facts rather than speak rhetorically. Those facts suggest that something is substantially wrong. We all have a responsibility to respond.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: We all want facts, not rhetoric. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comparable statistics of that claimed low morale in the medical profession during the Lib-Lab pact, when morale was distinctly low? I do not have any such figures, but it would be interesting to compare them. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the past 10 years, the average GP list has been reduced by 9 per cent, which is difficult to square with the high stress to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. Hughes: I was not here in the time of the Lib-Lab pact, but I remember the issues and debates. The former

  401
  Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), said that the health service suffered significant cuts and waiting lists under the Labour Government at that time. That is a matter of record, and I remember it well. I do not doubt that the health service in the late 1970s was badly sapped of morale. We are debating the health service today, and I want to respond positively because we have an obligation, between us, to prepare the service for the next century, when there will be more demands than now.
  There will be no bottomless pit, no matter which party is in government and who is Secretary of State, any more than there is now. The Secretary of State was right to point out that there will always need to be rationing of health care, and we would be fools to ignore that fact. Rationing has always happened—at some times by long waiting lists, at others by clinical choices. We owe a duty collectively to our citizens to resolve three questions—as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who chairs the Health Select Committee, knows.
  First, what are the health service's boundaries of responsibility? The original legislation and current legislation do not accurately define them. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield gave an example of care in the community, where free service at the point of delivery may no longer be available. We may enter the area of community care or social services. Redefinition is a difficult debate, but we must address it.
  Secondly, we must address how we make choices among competing priorities for funds that will always be insufficient to meet the needs to which the NHS would like to respond. We may need to be rigorous about eliminating work that does not have proven clinical value. If I may be controversial, the famous case of Jennifer's ear was probably an example of work that did not have proven clinical value.
  Thirdly, we should seek to agree the minimum public funding needed to guarantee a comprehensive health service in all four countries of the United Kingdom that is free at the point of delivery and accessible to all our citizens.
  Those difficult-to-answer questions are ideally suited to the exercise of that which, from this week, I am required to call partnership politics. The people—patients, actual and prospective, professionals and politicians—should begin a dialogue to reach agreement. Just as there used to be bipartisan agreement on pensions policy, if we are to hold on to a national health service we will require a bipartisan or multi-partisan agreement on health service policy.
  The best guarantee for the future of the health service in the next century, with more older people to be treated and more high-cost medicine, is renewed commitment to the service's principles and agreement on paying for its practice in a way that accommodates those greater demands. I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues, and those who speak on health matters for Labour, agree that they should have such a dialogue with me and my colleagues and others in the House. Otherwise, we shall have the same sort of shouting match as we have seen this afternoon, which does not advance the cause of patients one jot.
  6.37 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to debate the state of the national health service because I want to draw attention to the work
  402
  that the Select Committee on Health, which I have the honour to chair, is currently undertaking in respect of long-term care—an issue of enormous importance in future policy and direction and to the public.
  How the disabled elderly are to be cared for and who is to pay for that care is a question that affects us all potentially. Last November, the Committee published the results of phase 1 of its inquiry, which considered the implications of Department of Health guidance on NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs. That report was unanimous, and I thank all my colleagues on the Committee for the constructive way in which that topic was discussed. It was a very good advertisement for the Select Committee system. We are now well into phase 2 of our inquiry, which is considering the potential demand for long-term care in the future and the possible consequences of funding arrangements.
  I shall begin by outlining the main conclusions in our report and the main points of the Government's response, which was published yesterday. The Select Committee has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the response, so I shall give my own personal view. I will also touch on the main issues that we are considering in phase 2 of the inquiry.
  The Select Committee was pleased that the Department of Health had recognised the need to clarify NHS responsibilities for continuing health care services. We commended the Department for the extent to which it was able to accept views expressed during its consultation period. Nevertheless, there were some areas where we thought that further clarification would be helpful for the NHS, for local authorities and also, of course, for the users of those services.
  The guidance calls on health authorities to develop local policies for purchasing continuing health care services. All the members of the Select Committee were struck by the desire of witnesses that health authorities should not focus solely on the important question of defining eligibility criteria for NHS continuing health care, but should also ensure that the full range of high-quality continuing health care services is available to support people in their own homes for as long as possible. I am pleased to note that the Government strongly agree with our sentiments.
  The Select Committee shared the concerns of many witnesses who argued that locally set eligibility criteria might create unacceptably wide variations in the provision of NHS services. We recognised that the Department of Health's guidance provided a framework which went some way towards meeting those concerns, but on the grounds of equity we recommended that the nationally set framework should include eligibility criteria for long-term care so that it is absolutely clear what the NHS, as a national service, will always provide.
  I am also pleased that the Government, in their response to our report, agreed that the current variation in continuing health care arrangements needs to be addressed. The Government have also committed the national health service executive board to reviewing, during the coming year, how eligibility criteria are operating in practice and to issuing further guidance on priority issues relating to eligibility criteria, which may, in effect, lead to the national criteria that we called for in our report.

  403
  The Select Committee felt that it was important that patients, together with their families and carers, should be left in no doubt as to the circumstances in which health authorities rather than local authorities will be responsible for purchasing continuing care services, especially nursing home care which, as the House will be aware, can be purchased both by health authorities and by local authority social services departments. We were not convinced that the Department of Health's refusal to provide information on the types of cases that might be expected to come within the eligibility criteria was justifiable. We therefore recommended that the Department of Health should prepare illustrative case studies and widely disseminate them.
  I am pleased that the Government have recognised the strength of our case by accepting in their response that there is value in health authorities testing their eligibility criteria against case studies. I fear, however, that the members of the Select Committee will be disappointed that the Department of Health is still only considering whether it would be helpful to issue the kind of illustrative case studies that we call for. In our view, those are clearly necessary to help members of the public to understand their position.
  Our report also recommended that the Department of Health should introduce a national long-term care charter, which would specify the minimum levels of provision that people could expect from health authorities, NHS trusts, GP fundholders and local authorities. It would also specify access to a named range of services, a minimum list of specialist equipment and home aids, time limits for assessment, and provision of services where need is identified.
  The Government have told us that they have not reached a final decision on whether to issue such a charter, which would cover some of the ground already covered by the forthcoming local community charters, but that before April they will issue a national leaflet on long-term care. We look forward to seeing that.
  The guidance issued by the Department of Health also deals with hospital discharge arrangements for patients who are assessed as not requiring further NHS-funded continuing health care. The Select Committee recommended that health authorities and NHS trusts should not discharge patients home without a package of care being prepared, which can be demonstrated to meet their assessed needs fully and, as far as possible, agreed in advance with them and their informal carers. We also called for NHS-funded patients entering a nursing home to have the right, subject to the necessary clinical and financial conditions, to choose their nursing home—a right which currently exists for local authority-funded patients in nursing homes.
  The Select Committee welcomed the proposed establishment of independent panels to which patients being discharged from hospitals, who are not to be funded by the NHS, can appeal. Those panels will provide an extra safeguard for patients facing important and sensitive decisions about their future. We also urged the Department of Health to clarify the arrangements under which those panels would seek independent clinical advice. We also recommended that the right of appeal to the review panel should he extended to all patients
  404
  assessed as requiring nursing home care, wherever they live, when that care is not to be funded by the NHS, and that the right of appeal should not be restricted to those being discharged from hospital.
  I am pleased that the Department of Health's further guidance on the review procedure makes it clear that patients, families and their carers have the right to request a second clinical opinion, which should be offered routinely before their case reaches the independent review panel. However, it is disappointing that the Department of Health has not clarified our concerns about how the provision of independent clinical advice to the review panel can be conducted fairly from the patient's point of view, if an opinion is to be given only on whether the clinical judgments made match the health authority's eligibility criteria, rather than on the clinical diagnosis, management or prognosis of the patient.
  The Select Committee warmly welcomed the decision that implementation of the new guidance should be one of the six national priorities set by the Department of Health for the NHS over the next three to five years. We called upon the Department of Health to set firm target dates for the completion of NHS reinvestment programmes by all those health authorities whose reviews indicated a need for such a programme. We also considered that to aid public confidence in the equity of access nationally to NHS-funded continuing health care, the Department of Health should publish the outcome of its review of individual health authorities' policies and eligibility criteria and outline the action that it would take against any authority which significantly departed from the national framework. I welcome the Government's assurance that health authorities will have to publish plans clearly setting out the target dates for completion of any necessary reinvestment programmes; and the Committee will look to the NHS executive to monitor health authorities closely to ensure that the policies are fully implemented.
  I should like now briefly to outline how the Select Committee is taking forward its work on long-term care in phase 2 of the inquiry. Many of our witnesses have commented on the need for the Government, Parliament, providers and the public to participate in a far-reaching debate about the future of long-term care provision and funding. We hope that our Committee is currently stimulating that debate. We are considering what models of care exist for long-term care services, and we are further examining the differing models of care which can meet future demand for long-term care.
  Some of our earlier witnesses stressed the potential impact that health promotion might have on reducing demand, while others drew attention to the potential offered by further investment in rehabilitation services. We are also considering who should manage long-term care.
  An aging population is a widely recognised phenomenon throughout most of the developed world, including the United Kingdom. The state of health of older people is also a key determinant of the need for, and hence the cost of, long-term care. We shall therefore be considering the cost implications of long-term care, given projected demographic trends, and whether talk of a demographic time bomb is realistic or alarmist.
  We have been exploring the question of whether longer life expectancy is likely to lead to longer periods of illness and disability, in addition to other factors which may impact on the demand for long-term care, such as changing social and demographic conditions.

  405
  Whatever the scale of the likely increase in demand for long-term care, one thing is clear: it will have to be financed from one source or another. Where the balance of responsibility for funding as between the individual and the state should lie is being debated in just about every western country, as well as in many Asian countries. It is probably true to say that this issue potentially eclipses in its future importance every other issue that we daily discuss in this House. I hope to be able to address the House on this subject again in the near future, when the Select Committee has produced its final recommendations.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Joe Benton: I begin by thanking the shadow Secretary of State for Health for her excellent exposé of the state of the health services as they affect my constituents in Bootle and Merseyside. She particularly drew attention to the shortage of beds—a factor highly relevant to my part of the world.
  I could not help pricking up my ears when I heard the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) refer to case studies. As she is Chair of the Select Committee on Health, I would like her to consider three case studies that I shall offer the House tonight, if the House will bear with me. I shall use them to illustrate and identify what is going on in hospital care in my part of the world. That is why I am asking the hon. Lady to take my case studies forward.
  The first concerns Mrs. K. Larkin, who was diagnosed as having cancer and taken to Fazakerley hospital on 26 October. She was admitted at 2 pm and remained in the reception area until 8 pm without food or drink. Her daughter had to ask for a blanket to cover her up. Only after repeated requests from her family was she even given painkillers. She was later discharged and eventually died at home.
  The second case relates to Mr. J. Molloy, another constituent of mine. On 16 January 1995 he was taken by ambulance to Fazakerley hospital, to which he was admitted at 1620 hours suffering from internal bleeding due to a duodenal ulcer. He was kept waiting in the reception area on a trolley for some seven hours and 10 minutes, before being transferred to a cubicle where he was later visited by a doctor, some eight and three-quarter hours after being admitted. He was then taken to a ward at 0320 hours the following morning.
  The third case will take a little longer to deal with, but I should like the House to hear it. Mr. Barlow, now unfortunately deceased, was terminally ill with cancer. He was admitted to Fazakerley hospital, following a referral by Dr. Krasner, for the purpose of alleviating a restriction in his throat. He arrived at the hospital at 1.30 pm and proceeded to ward 12 as requested, where he waited for a doctor. After an hour, he asked the nurse when he would be seen and was advised that the doctor was on his way. Much later, because there was a bank holiday pending, he was advised that there was little point in his staying because he would not be seen until after the bank holiday.
  Mr. Barlow arrived back after the bank holiday and was admitted to the ward at about 8 am, only to be told that no bed was available. A computer breakdown was blamed. He was given a trolley bed and placed in the store room of the hospital among boxes of syringes, dressing packs and other medical appliances and equipment. That afternoon he was taken to theatre and given a general anaesthetic. He was assured that he would be placed on a
  406
  ward on his return from the theatre. Mr. Barlow came round from the anaesthetic somewhat disoriented and found himself back on a trolley bed in the same store room—aware that he still had a blockage in his throat. He could get no clear information about what had happened from nurses or ward doctors.
  Those are three real cases: they actually happened. The situation in Liverpool's hospitals has been rightly described as critical. Indeed, so bad is it that my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) went with me to meet the trust. Earlier, the Secretary of State talked about referring cases to Ministers individually. All Merseyside Members have referred individual cases to the Minister, but we have had no satisfactory response: we are always referred back to the trust.
  This has caused a terrible crisis of confidence throughout Merseyside. The sad fact is that the older one gets, the less confidence one feels about going anywhere near a hospital. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer today the questions that I tried to put earlier in the debate. The Secretary of State today mentioned certain parts of the country where new beds have been created. Exactly what beds have replaced those lost by the closure of Walton hospital in Liverpool? Will he also say why, when we refer individual cases to the Department of Health—contrary to what the Secretary of State said earlier—he will not deal with them as a matter of urgency, but simply refers us back to the trust, which is self-defeating and gets us absolutely nowhere?
  It is clear that there is a crisis in the health service. I am not a dinosaur. I am quite prepared to listen. I know of the problems of funding, and I am prepared to look at that and to have an open mind. What I and my colleagues insist upon, however, is that we have a national health service of which we can be proud. I remember its inception when I was a young boy, and I remember the great relief that it brought to families such as mine. Instead of having to pay for doctors and services, we had the national health service. It is one of the greatest treasures that this nation has and justifies our putting the adjective "Great" in front of Britain. That is what I think of the health service. I am prepared to look at all sorts of ideas so that we eventually come up with a national health service which provides the necessary service at the point of delivery and does not mean people being stuck on trolleys for nine hours at a time in hospitals up and down the country.
  Before the hon. Member for Broxbourne leaves the Chamber, I ask her to take to the Select Committee the case studies that I have given. Let us see what the Committee has to say. If any Government fail to provide a proper national health service at the point of delivery, they will bring the country down. I believe in the framework of a Christian state, and that framework means a wholesome national health service that is available to everybody.
  When the Minister replies, I very much hope that he will answer the questions that were posed by my hon. Friends earlier. We are dealing with a very serious matter, and we shall be failing many people if there is any further deterioration or exacerbation of the crisis that exists in the health service.
  7.1 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) is not the only one who seeks to have a Christian basis in life. Nor does any party,

  407
  on either side of the House, have any right to suggest that it is the only party with a Christian base. It is extremely unfair to expect the Minister for Health, or, indeed, the Secretary of State, when he has had no warning whatever about Mr. Jones or Mrs. Brown having received this or that kind of treatment, to know instantly the circumstances surrounding the case, when there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of hospitals in this country. That would be totally absurd. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has not had the experience, but surely a little thought would have shown him that it is simply not reasonable to expect the Minister, who is in charge of the biggest business in the whole of Europe, to know every last detail about every patient in every hospital. He simply could not do that.
  Mr. Benton: Of course, I do not expect the Minister to be able to reply in detail to every individual case, but it was the Secretary of State who said earlier that individual cases should be referred on an individual basis. I presume that by that he meant, referred to him. I—and my colleagues who represent constituencies in Merseyside—am tired of referring individual cases. I thought that I made that point clearly and lucidly. We are getting nowhere.
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman is not being realistic at all. Obviously—I wish that he would listen to what I am saying—no Minister or Secretary of State for Health could possibly be expected to know all the details of all the patient cases in all the thousands of hospitals in this country. When a single case is referred to a Minister, he has no alternative but to make inquiries of the health authority that covers the hospital where the patient is having treatment. There is no other possible way to deal with the matter. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
  I did not, although many hon. Members did, seek to intervene during the opening speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). It was not because I was not burning to do so—indeed I was—but because I did not know which point to pick her up on. A clear reply could have been given to every single one of her questions. I shall not prolong my speech by answering all the points that she raised, but I wish to raise a particular point.
  The hon. Lady poured scorn on the Government's interest in involving the private sector and competition in the health service. Only last week—this is not old hat, either—I tabled a question, which, sadly, was not reached during oral questions, and how many of us have had to deal with that disappointment? My question read:
  "To ask the Secretary of State what estimate he has made of the annual saving to the NHS arising from compulsory competitive tendering."
  The written reply was:
  "As a result of market testing, it is estimated that since 1983 the national health service has been saved a total in excess of £1 billion".—[Official Report, 16 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 548.]
  That saving is the result of competition being introduced and the private sector being utilised. What interests me about that is that every penny of that sum has gone to patient care. Had that action not been taken, there would have been £1 billion less for patient care. We can assume only that were, God forbid, a Labour Government to be elected and to take control of our health service, we would no longer have such savings. I have no doubt whatever
  408
  that patients would suffer badly. It should be clearly on record that the Government's determination to save money and to use every sensible method of competitive tendering is a good idea.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: Other hon. Members want to speak, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall hurry along.
  I am putting this on record, because it is true. Our health service has never been as good as it is today. For every one of the cases that the hon. Member for Bootle mentioned, I can tell him of 10, 20 or 30 patients who were very satisfied with the care that they received. Many of them have written to me about it. I have a file from people who wished to tell me how satisfied they were with the care that they received. Never in our history have so many doctors treated so many patients for so many ills with so few failures. Indeed, they are carrying out miracles, when I look at some of the cases of tiny babies being operated on today who would have died only a few years ago.
  There are such cases not just in Birmingham, but throughout the country. Hip replacements are now carried out as a matter of common practice. Twenty years ago, transplant surgery was unheard of on its present scale, but it is now widespread. Consider how miraculous that is and the benefits that it gives. Nowadays people have not one heart bypass but triple or quadruple heart bypasses in one operation. Our clever doctors have never served the people so well. Our health service has never been as miraculous as it is today.
  The second basic truth to which Opposition Members should listen carefully is that no Government of any political colour will ever be able to ensure that every single patient is treated for every single ill, in the hospital of his choice, by the consultant whom he prefers, the instant that the need arises. That may be a good goal for which to strive, but it ain't gonna happen because it is impossible. We can work towards it, but it is unlikely to be achieved, whoever is in power.
  In Birmingham, we are grateful for the excellent health care available. However, Opposition Members have taken care to dwell on the few times when things do not go right rather than the thousands of times when they do. The newspapers are the same. I am aware that editors believe that only bad news sells papers, but I wish that they would not lie. A recent story in Birmingham referred to the huge loss of beds in Birmingham hospitals.
  Incidentally, I was worried to deduce that the hon. Member for Peckham must have misled the House when she read a portion of a letter this afternoon. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will have been disappointed that she was not present during his speech, because he also had information from the same official. The information that my right hon. Friend gave me was almost directly opposite to that given by the hon. Lady, so one of them must be wrong and we should be told which one. My right hon. Friend, who has been a Secretary of State, had the information in front of him and he read some of it.
  I do not believe that the Birmingham health authorities are lying when they say:
  "Claims in the local press and elsewhere, that there has been a huge loss of beds across Birmingham hospitals are not true."

  409
  We should at least have the truth, and the authorities that are in charge say that such claims are not true.
  It is right to recognise—nobody referred to this when talking about the lack of hospital beds—that many patients today are dealt with in day care facilities. Surely we do not need the same number of beds when thousands of patients are dealt with in the course of a day. I also welcome that advance, which medicine has given us.
  The substantial investment in our Birmingham hospitals should be acknowledged. The Queen Elizabeth hospital has had a new neuro-science unit at a cost of £7.2 million, a cancer centre will open shortly at a cost of £8.5 million and there is a £30 million budget for improving theatres and wards. At Selly Oak hospital, £7.5 million has been spent on a new accident and emergency trauma unit and £2 million has been allocated for upgrading the outpatients' department. That was certainly needed, but £2 million is a lot of money. City hospital has had £7.2 million for a high-tech eye unit and £1.4 million for the upgrading of the accident and emergency unit, and it is also to have a new dermatology unit. Such figures are exceedingly encouraging.
  Birmingham Heartlands, Good Hope and the Children's hospital have had £34.7 million between them. We also have a miraculous new women's hospital costing £17 million, for which we in Birmingham are grateful. All in all, Birmingham health authorities now have a budget of £600 million. That is one city—an important city, but one city.
  Why will the Opposition never tell us whether they will put any more money into the health service, or even whether they will put as much money in? We just do not know. But those are the cold, hard facts and they are true. Of course, difficulties and problems can arise and they do, but there could not be a better sign of Government commitment to the health service than the fact that one city alone has had £600 million for the improvements that are needed.
  I am rather tired of the unjustified criticisms made in the debate, which are constantly made, for reasons that can only be political. A favourite grumble is that too much is spent on management. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield pointed out that inefficient management in the health service leads to bad patient care. However, I want to put on record the fact that Birmingham spends less than 3 per cent. of its resources on management—less than 3 per cent. That is not a waste of money on large cars and all the rest of it. In addition, there is no trace of self-congratulation when Birmingham says:
  "We know there is further room for further improvement and we will go for it."
  I am sure that the Government feel the same.
  Finally, I want to make two suggestions for the improvement of health care, particularly for the elderly. Too often in hospital, the elderly are robbed of their dignity. That occurs in two particular ways, which have been brought home to me, about which the previous Secretary of State tried to do something.
  Many people hate being in a mixed ward. We understand that intensive care is a different matter because people are often unconscious. But men and women do not want to be mixed up in an ordinary hospital ward, and they should not be. It takes away their dignity and it is wrong.
  410
  There is also far too much taking away of elderly people's dignity by immediately referring to them as Betty, Jim or Bill. That may seem a small thing, but it is not. That surprises younger people, but I have known many elderly people—hon. Members know that there is validity in what I say—who feel a loss of dignity if they are addressed by their Christian name, often by nurses and doctors young enough to be their grandchildren, if they are not used to it. That is hurtful and there is no need for it. Surely to goodness we could recognise that every scrap of help that we can give our patients to preserve their dignity as well as their health should be made available.
  With those two suggestions, I strongly support the amendment and I hope that it is carried.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Listening to some Conservative Members, one would think that the health service was safe in their hands, but the complaints that I have received and the troubles about which I have heard during a number of years under this Administration suggest otherwise. As a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I know that there has been a large increase in the number of complaints about the health service.
  I recognise that more operations are carried out now than ever before as a result of improved techniques. A person can go into hospital one day and come out the next, whereas a few years ago, he might have had to stay for a week. That, however, does not account for some of the horror stories that my hon. Friends have told. I have heard such stories myself, particularly in relation to a hospital in my area, the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital.
  Originally, a hospital was built in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), at considerable cost. Another hospital existed on another site, but, although still operational, it was run down and in a decaying state. The new hospital became a trust shortly after being opened, despite suggestions that it should not take that step too quickly. Lo and behold! In that first year of its existence, it was in debt to the tune of £2.5 million. That is when the problems started.
  Two mothers are currently taking legal action against the hospital because they lost their children, which was undoubtedly due to neglect on the part of the hospital and, in particular, the maternity ward. I do not know what progress their cases are making, as legal action is a lengthy process. One of those patients is a constituent of mine; the other is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. My constituent was left in the maternity ward. After her waters broke, she was left again. Although obviously in labour, she was left for hours with no one to tend her. Finally, someone came along and found that she was in labour—as she had been for some time. As it was her first child, she did not realise what was happening. The child was born, and taken from her; when she woke up, the doctors told her that it was very ill and that there was not much hope. The baby subsequently died.
  The moral of that story is simple. As I said, the hospital had been advised not to become a trust yet, but it did so under pressure from the Government. It was £2.5 million in debt. It had cut the number of midwives on its staff to save a few bob: it had to save money in some way.

  411
  Because of the cut, the midwife who was looking after my constituent was having to do 32 other things at the same time. She was under enormous pressure.
  The chief executive, chairman and finance officer of that hospital have all left. I thank God for that, because it was they who made a mess of things. I must admit that those who took over are doing a pretty good job at present: at least they have clawed back £1 million, and patients to whom I have spoken seem fairly satisfied. I have not received many complaints.
  I see that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who chairs the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, is present. The Committee often investigates the health service, and we repeatedly find that trust managers and chief executives are not taking seriously their responsibility to deal with complaints. When serious complaints are made, they ignore them. The health service ombudsman is said to have renewed his attack on national health service managers' handling of complaints, and the way in which they ignore the necessary procedures. I wonder how many complaints are received by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and whether any of the complaints cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) have been investigated.
  My local practice in Blyth Valley has 12,000 patients. The practice, which is one of the biggest in the area, refused to adopt fundholding, although other local practices have. I have heard stories and tried to gather evidence, and I questioned the Parliamentary Commissioner some time ago when he was giving evidence to the Committee. I had an inkling that fundholders were beginning to receive preferential treatment, although that has always been denied. I asked the Commissioner whether, if someone told me that a patient in a fundholding practice had been seen before them, that would constitute a legitimate complaint. The Commissioner said that he would investigate the matter.
  I am examining the position carefully, and I have written to the executive at the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital to that effect. Of course, those involved may have smartened themselves up because they know that I have my eye on them. I ask other hon. Members who obtain any relevant evidence to write to the Commissioner, and to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and me. As I said, however, the hospital is getting back on its feet, and I hope that phase 3 will proceed successfully.
  Only last year, Gallup conducted a survey among NHS workers. I doubt that the Minister has seen the results, but I shall provide him with a copy if he would like one. The survey found that nurses were leaving the NHS in droves, piling pressure on those who remained. I remind hon. Members that Gallup is entirely independent.
  When workers were asked whether they would consider leaving the NHS if they could obtain another job, 62 per cent. said that they would—an increase of 48 per cent. since the last survey in 1993; 75 per cent. of ward sisters and charge nurses said that they would leave, and 74 per cent. of staff nurses, 70 per cent. of health visitors and 69 per cent. of midwives said the same. When asked for their reasons, they cited falling standards: 62 per cent. mentioned having to compromise in regard to standards
  412
  of care, while 63 per cent. referred to acute staff shortages and 75 per cent. said that they felt undervalued. If that is the reaction from health service workers, no wonder my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and others are receiving complaints. Sixty per cent. said that their reason was the treatment by management. Of course, management is hard on the heels of the poor unfortunate people working in the health service. The service is being cut and those people are under pressure, understaffed and under great stress, and they are doing more work now than before. Of course, they are sick of it, and managers are always on their back—that is what they are for.
  Fifty-one per cent. of nurses said that their reason was level of pay. They were concerned about the Government's policy of breaking the national agreement and bringing in local pay. Many of them thought that that was just another way of devaluing their pay in different regions, so a nurse in one region would get less than a nurse in another region doing the same job. If nurses want to work in a rich region, they are "Okay, mate," but if they want to work in a poor one, they are not.
  There was a good article on health in one of the national newspapers in the north-east. Newspapers are newspapers, but I have heard this before and it was not far from the mark. In the north, the number of nurses has fallen by 4,000 in five years. It was interesting to read that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries is luring nurses to pull pints. One of its executive members said:
  "In our experience, trained nurses make superb pub managers".
  That is obviously because nurses are tolerant and understanding—that is all people want in a pub manager. Breweries are luring nurses and nurses are going to work for them.
  This year, the Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror carried 1,000 job advertisements for nurses—there were five pages of them. More than 100 nursing posts are vacant in the north-east of England. There must be something wrong, unless all nurses go to a bank—as an agency is called. Apparently, nurses who use them get more money. A hospital or a trust can sack a nurse tomorrow and she can join a bank, come back to that hospital and cost the hospital more. I cannot fathom that out for my life, but it happens.
  There are short-term contracts for nurses now. When a nurse is employed, she is put on only a one or two-month contract, so she has no job security. In the health service, hospital trusts can float people out and float them in at a whim. It is a pity that we cannot do the same with some of the executive members and chairmen of the trusts, although I must admit that I did pretty well in achieving that in the Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS trust, getting rid of three of them in almost one go.
  Staff shortages and a growing work load cause great stress. At least 87 per cent. of nurses interviewed in the Gallup poll said that they were overworked and under great stress. That says a lot. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that people are under stress. We must ask why that is happening. It might be because they see all these people on trolleys. They might be seeing the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has made complaints about, and they cannot do anything about it because they are overworked and overstressed.

  413
  In the past few years, complaints about the health service have increased by 55,000. There is a serious fault somewhere. If we do not get to grips with it, and if we do not give nurses a decent wage and make the job worth their while, problems will pile up.
  How many times have we heard a patient say how wonderful it was being in hospital, seeing nurses at work and seeing their dedication to the people whom they are there to serve? I have heard that many times in hospital, yet nurses' wages have fallen and, as the survey showed, many want to leave the health service. That counteracts all that. If those things are happening, big accidents will occur and complaints will be made.
  In relation to the case involving my constituent—the mother who lost her child—it was not the midwife's fault. I do not blame her. It was the fault of the system. I forgot to mention before that the trust brought the nurses back after making them redundant, when it found that it could not do without them—I do not know for how long. That is the system that we have now. That is what causes deterioration in the health service.
  The health service is a wonderful thing. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government's idea is to have a two-tier health service, whereby some people pay and some people wait in the corridor. That is the service which the Government want. I say to the Minister that, if the survey means anything, it means that people who are working in the health service are as sick as we are at the state of it.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: What the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) says about the health service in the north-east bears no relation to my experience in the health service in Buckinghamshire and in many other parts of the country. For example, he referred to nurses' pay declining. That is contrary to the facts. If my memory serves me well, since 1979 nurses' pay has increased in real terms by 45 per cent. Nurses' pay dropped only once in real terms and that was during the time of the Labour Government.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to have trouble with the service he gets from his trust. He does not like fundholding. He suggests that nurses are leaving the health service in droves. The South Buckinghamshire NHS trust gives excellent service to my constituents. GP fundholders give excellent service too.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to get no proper answers when investigating complaints about his chief executives. Again, that is contrary to my experience and, I suspect, to that of most hon. Members.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whitney: Very briefly. The hon. Gentleman had a pretty good innings.
  Mr. Campbell: I did not say that I did not get proper answers; I said that the health service ombudsman said that he did not get proper notice from health executives.
  Mr. Whitney: I can repeat only that that is certainly not my experience and I would be surprised if colleagues had a similar experience.
  414
  What the hon. Gentleman produced was on a par with that produced by his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). As someone who has been interested in the health service for many years, I have grown accustomed, over the years, to hearing a litany of complaints and—as the cliché has it—to seeing this shroud waving. We have had that this afternoon, particularly from the hon. Member for Peckham, who always—she, too, has been involved in the health service for a number of years—comes to the House and reads out her essay, which is one long dismal dirge quoting individual cases.
  Invariably, Conservative Members become deeply angry about that misrepresentation of the health service and about the total farrago of misinformation. It is based sometimes on ignorance and sometimes, one is moved to believe, on malice. The standard attacks are normal. Sadly, part of the reason for that is that the national health service has become a political football—a lamentable feature of British politics. I may not have agreed with many of the things that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said, but I join him in this: if only the Labour party grew up and stopped believing in the myths that it has created about what did or did not happen in 1948, we could have a genuinely adult approach to tackling the challenges of health care.
  Everyone knows what those challenges are. With the discovery of new treatments, the aging of the population and the wonderful opportunities that are available, added to the inevitable and inescapable pressures of funding, there are and will always be challenges, but we shall get nowhere as a nation while we have the pettifogging, narrow-minded and idiotic approach that was personified by the performance of the hon. Member for Peckham. It is a matter of great regret that her participation in the debate and her presence in the Chamber seemed to be of such brief duration. We have seen little of her. She would have at least learnt something if she had stayed.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: What about the Secretary of State for Health?
  Mr. Whitney: My right hon. Friend was here a great deal longer than the hon. Member for Peckham. She is in much greater need of learning what is happening in the health service than is the Secretary of State.
  The approach of the hon. Member for Peckham seemed to be based on one or two minimal propositions. The first was the usual litany of individual cases—we heard the same from every other Labour Member who has contributed—in which the NHS may or may not have failed. As up to 1 million patients a day are treated by the NHS in hospitals or GP surgeries, it is not surprising that there can be one or many more mistakes. Of course, that is not the story of what is really happening in the NHS. The lie is given to those statements by Labour Members—or would be if they thought, for only a moment—by the situation into which they plunged what they are so fond of calling their national health service.
  In relation to other issues, such as what happened in 1979 and before, I am almost prepared to let bygones be bygones—but not about the NHS. The Labour Government's record was criminal, and Labour Members should never forget it or be allowed to forget it. They speak as if they are completely ignorant, which is the most

  415
  charitable thing that I can say. They do not know how bad it was when they ran it. They seem to have no idea of the fact that we have increased spending on the NHS in real terms by 66 per cent.
  The average spend has increased from £433 to £697 a head, which is a terrific achievement. Of course, any fool can spend money badly; the great challenge is to spend money sensibly. That is what is happening. It has not been universally successful, because that is not in the nature of life, or certainly not in an enterprise as big as the NHS. We heard no recognition of that fact from the hon. Member for Peckham.
  We heard from the hon. Lady that fatuous attack on management. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, Conservative Members, far more than Labour Members, would lead the charge on bureaucracy. When one is dealing with £41 billion of taxpayers' money and when there are more than 8 million hospital treatments every year, one needs that money and that enterprise to be managed. To spend 3 per cent. on management charges strikes me as entirely reasonable.
  The one concrete point—if it can be so dignified—made by the hon. Member for Peckham was that, in relation to resources, she had allegedly discovered £1.5 billion that was spent on management that she would transfer to front-line care. How will she manage that? What will she do? If 3 per cent. for management charges is too much, is 1.5 or 2 per cent. the right figure? We never hear anything like that from the Labour party, and least of all from the hon. Lady.
  There was some suggestion that the NHS was being privatised, which of course is complete nonsense. It is true that we do not share the hon. Lady's opposition to private medical care. We believe in choice. I shall not go over the issue of choice, which has been so familiar over the past few days in relation to the hon. Member for Peckham, but it should be recognised that the private medicine sector is not in competition with, but is an adjunct and addition to, the health resources of the nation. I hope that the Labour party is clear about that.
  The Member for Peckham seemed to object strongly to any increase—she greatly exaggerated what it has been—in private medical provision. I must tell Opposition Members that the final years of the previous Labour Government were one of the bonanza times for the private medical industry. They were the great recruiting sergeants for private medicine because the health service was in such a mess. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley would have had something to complain about then. That was when people, including the unions, flocked to sign up by the cartload for private medicine. Union leaders were working hard, and why not, to provide private medical services to their members in case it was needed.
  We heard that great litany, which completely disregarded the achievements of the NHS which include the fact that 3 million more people receive treatments every year in NHS hospitals, and we have thousands more doctors and tens of thousands more nurses. It was the same old litany that we have heard so often.
  I believe that a great disservice is constantly done to the 1 million people, or whatever it may be, who are now working in the health service and giving a first-class,
  416
  international-quality service. The litany has completely devalued and debased that service. I hope that the Labour leadership will look at itself and try to adopt a more positive attitude and constructive approach. Perhaps then we will be able to conjure up some meaning out of the term "stakeholding". That would be better than a diatribe, of which the hon. Lady gave us the most classic example.
  The hon. Lady said, for example, that some treatments were no longer available. Does she not know that there are vastly more treatments available now than were dreamt of in 1979, not because of the Conservative Government but because of medical advances? The Government have generated an economy that is successful and strong enough to bear the necessary increase in resources that are devoted to the NHS to bring those new treatments to the service of our constituents. The hon. Lady's statement that treatments are no longer available is a grotesque misrepresentation of reality.
  The hon. Member for Peckham, finally, tried to attack the private finance initiative, and again she seemed to be at odds with her leader and protector, the Leader of the Opposition. In the Budget debate he said:
  "The PFI is right in principle. We have supported it, and in many ways we have been advocating it."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1077.]
  Not so the hon. Lady.
  The PFI has great benefits to bring to the NHS. I am delighted to say that Wycombe general hospital and Amersham hospital in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) are benefiting as some of the first examples of funding from the PFI. They are benefiting to the tune of £35 million. Because of the PFI, a wonderful hospital development is coming to us much more quickly than it would have done. There is a great story to be told. A great record has been achieved. It is one more great British achievement that the Opposition concentrate on denigrating. They should stop.
  7.47 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: The speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of peddling misinformation about the NHS. I was present for both the opening speeches in the debate and was impressed by my hon. Friend's detailed knowledge of the problems facing the national health service, unlike the Secretary of State for Health, who devoted a great deal of his speech to matters that had nothing to do with the NHS. In fact, he seem to be much more concerned to find out what we were going to do in government rather than to tell us what he had done in his post.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe talked about the number of patients being treated in the health service and I think that he said something like, "It is hardly surprising that there is a mistake a day when millions of patient are being treated." That is not much consolation to my constituent, Mr. Craig Yates of Darwen, who is fighting for his life in hospital because he was denied a brain scan at Blackburn royal infirmary.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Wycombe that, if one out of 10 planes that land at Heathrow airport were to crash, we would not say that that was all right because nine out of 10 had landed safely; we would find out why

  417
  one had crashed and do something about it. It is a great pity that Conservative Members do not apply the same test to the national health service.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. I shall concentrate on the future of the hospital in my constituency. I say "the" hospital because we have only one hospital, the Rossendale general. It is situated high on a hill, partly still housed in what was once a workhouse, with beautiful views over the Rossendale valley. It is dear to all our hearts, and is part and parcel of our valley community.
  At times, Rossendale general has seemed to be under threat of closure and some of the services that we wanted retained have now gone. We have no accident and emergency facilities and no maternity unit. If people need accident and emergency facilities or want to have a baby, they must go to Bury, Burnley, Rochdale or Blackburn. We fought hard against those changes at the time, but when we lost the fight we consoled ourselves with the thought that at least we still had our hospital. We were further encouraged when antenatal facilities were restored and the Burnley Health Care NHS trust decided to invest £5 million in the hospital over the past four years.
  Our satisfaction at having retained the hospital, however, may be short-lived. The bombshell was dropped last week by Mr. David Chew, chief executive of Burnley Health Care NHS trust. A week ago today, he met staff at the hospital and told them that 31 beds would be axed, a ward would be mothballed and 60 to 70 staff, mainly nurses, would go. He said:
  "I hope that we can find jobs for everyone and that no staff will go".
  The local Unison representative, Susan Holmes, said:
  "We are concerned about job losses. In spite of management assurances, there are a number of people on temporary contracts who are very worried about their position. Mr. Chew tried to assure us that this was the way forward".
  It may be the way forward for the trust, but it is not the way forward for the people of Rossendale, whom I am proud to represent in the House. Nor is it the way forward for the 60 to 70 staff who stand to lose their jobs, or for those patients who, according to nursing staff, have been sent packing because of insufficient beds.
  The proposals also mean that elderly women will be forced to endure the indignity of mixed wards, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) eloquently referred. She is right. Many patients, especially the elderly, do not want to be forced into mixed wards and I am deeply saddened that that will happen to my constituents to save money.
  Anne Parkinson of the Royal College of Nursing said of those proposals:
  "The beds we have been operating with have been full and we have been turning patients away recently. Goodness knows where they have gone. This seems a drastic step at a time when there is a national shortage of beds.
  I am sure the trust will handle redeployment sensitively but they cannot promise there will not be any job losses. Staff are worried about losing their jobs. Some who have not got any transport are also worried about where they will be redeployed. Fewer beds will also force more and more people to travel further afield for treatment. There has been a gradual decline in in-patient facilities here during the past 10 years and there is a real feeling among staff that the hospital is being run down."
  418
  Patients are being turned away through lack of beds, yet the trust is axing 31 beds. Hospital staff whom I met last weekend told me that someone turned up at the hospital last week claiming that he had bought 18 beds from the hospital and was there to collect them.
  If the proposals are not the way forward for my constituents, hospital staff and patients, why should it be the way forward for the trust? Mr. Chew made it plain last week that the decision was to do with cash, not patient care, and claimed that it would save the trust £200,000 a year. I wonder why the trust seeks to save that sum of money. Just over a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who was present earlier in this debate, secured an Adjournment debate on the state of chaos in the Burnley Health Care NHS trust. He read out a headline from the Lancashire Evening Telegraph:
  "Scapegoat: 'Health chairman asked me to resign to save his own neck'.
  The chairman and chief executive of the troubled Burnley Health Care Trust each called for the other's resignation today in an astonishing bust-up."
  We learned from the Minister's winding-up speech in that debate that, because the chief executive had fallen out with the chairman and wanted rid of her, the pay-off was no less than £245,000, which is the sum that the trust seeks to save today.
  A moving article appeared in my excellent local newspaper, the Rossendale Free Press, which many of my constituents read. It sums up the position by saying:
  "Desperately sick and dying people are shunted all over the country in search of hospital beds and Burnley Health Care NHS Trust's reaction is to close 31 beds at Rossendale General Hospital. How can it possibly make sense?
  They are not the right sort of beds, says Burnley Health Care Trust. There's no emergency intensive and coronary care back-up at Rossendale, which is to be turned into 'an important out-reach post for minor surgery', catering for short-stay and day cases.
  You'll get your ingrowing toenails, your hernia or your piles fixed at Rossendale and be home again in a jiffy. But who wants to be home again in a jiffy, walking wounded and thrown on the mercy of that well-known euphemism, Care in the Community? Try telling Rossendale's old people, stripped of their home-helps by financial cuts, what a marvellous service that is.
  A mixed-sex ward will replace the existing male and female general medical wards despite public inhibitions and sensibilities. When a woman is stripped of her dignity, in pain, and sitting behind a curtain on a bedpan, the last thing she wants is a bloke in the next bed. And vice versa.
  Letters heaping praise on Rossendale General and its superb nurses and doctors appear regularly on the Free Press Viewpoint page.
  The maternity unit was closed in the face of massive opposition. Ante-natal clinics were clawed back after public outcry. Trust chiefs are at pains to stress, yet again, the hospital is not in any danger of closing;… Yet they can hardly be surprised that Rossendale folk"—
  and their Member of Parliament—
  "are unable to resist the doubts and now will be even more perplexed, agitated, defensive, protective.
  Must we now stand by while more excellent services are amputated like limbs, until the trunk is no longer a hospital, but becomes an 'out-reach post'?"
  It is vital for the patients and staff of Rossendale general and the whole community of Rossendale that there are no further cuts. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate he will tell us how the Burnley Health Care NHS trust's latest proposals will improve health care for my constituents.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: I begin by declaring an interest. I am an adviser to the Western Provident Association, which, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) should know, is a non-profit-making organisation.
  Mr. McLeish indicated assent.
  Mr. Hayes: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's nod of approval.
  When I first saw the Leader of the Opposition sitting next to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), I thought, "There is decency in the man after all. He is there to protect the hon. Member for Peckham. God bless him, what a brave man he is." Then I realised that I had got it wrong because she was there to protect him, and to act as his human shield. They are the Siamese twins of British politics, but I suspect that, even now, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is working on a surgical separation. The hon. Member for Peckham should be very careful.
  I was having a drink the other day with a member of the shadow Cabinet, who said, "We have a saying in the Labour party—beware of left-wing toffs." Looking at the Opposition motion today, one sees that he was right. It could have been cobbled together by guests at a Pinter soirée discussing their view of the health service while being served Nicaraguan coffee by Filipino maids.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central must, I am afraid, pick up the wreckage from the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham later tonight, and we expect some answers from him. The hon. Lady's speech was not so much a policy statement as a cry for help. The speech from the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), however, was remarkably honest—although he did go off the rails towards the end. The hon. Gentleman admitted that we now have the lowest number of people waiting for treatment in the history of the health service. He also admitted that he had no evidence that there is a two-tier system, although he is investigating the matter. If the hon. Gentleman finds some evidence, I hope that he will report it to the House. I suspect, however, that he will find no such evidence.
  I spent a little of this morning reading through all of the speeches that the hon. Member for Peckham has made on health. The hon. Member for Fife, Central saw me do it. It was not a happy task. One interesting thing that the hon. Lady did say was that in vitro fertilisation was a lottery and that, "It depends on where you live." Oh dear—that has a familiar ring.
  One of the points that cropped up over and over again in the hon. Lady's speeches since 1987—I have listened to many of them in the House—was that the health service reforms that had been put into operation would have to be abolished. She has also said that GP fundholding was a wickedness that led to a two-tier system, and that, too, would have to go. NHS trust hospitals and the internal market would also have to go. It is all very different now, however.
  We just do not know precisely what Labour's policy on health is, and there is tremendous confusion. About 41 per cent. of the population are now covered by GP fundholding, and more than 10,000 GPs have voted with their feet because they know that the scheme provides
  420
  good service. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, Central is making a gesture with his fingers—a pleasant one, as one would expect from him—to indicate money. He is right. The fundholders are getting more money to spend on patient care, and that is quite apart from the money coming from the Government. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example—the £64 million made from efficiency savings has gone directly to the patient to provide services that have never been seen before.
  Mr. McLeish: Would the hon. Gentleman like to extol the virtues of the 59 per cent. of fundholders throughout England that are commissioning groups?
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman refers to commissioning groups, but I understand that one of Labour's policies is that the internal market, or the split between purchaser and provider that has been denounced over the years at the Dispatch Box from which the hon. Gentleman will shortly address the House, will continue. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that? Of course not, because he knows that it works.
  GP fundholders have been a great success, offering more services than ever before. There are now some 10,000 of them, covering 41 per cent. of the population, and it is expected that there will be an additional 660 by next year. If there is—heaven forbid—a Labour Government, the majority of people in the country will be covered by GP fundholders that work. According to GP fundholders in my constituency and elsewhere, it would be a grave mistake if they were not to continue.
  That is why the fudges are beginning. I mentioned in an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—Labour's previous health spokesman—extolled some of the virtues of GP fundholding in October 1995, but had added that she hoped that they would be abolished in the first year of a Labour Government. I assumed that that would again be a Labour manifesto commitment as it was in 1992, but oh no. We now hear something totally different from the hon. Member for Peckham. The policy is now shrouded in secrecy, and I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central—as this is an Opposition Supply day—will tell us what that policy is.
  What is a "comprehensive health care agreement", and how would it differ from the contract that we have at the moment? The hon. Gentleman knows that the contract system works because it gives incentives. Clive Wilkinson, chairman of the Wolverhampton NHS trust, said on BBC television:
  "You do have to have in the final analysis, don't you, the ability to take the contract away. Otherwise, if you don't have that, then all the incentive to the provider to deliver what they are asked to deliver disappears. We know from past experience that just cajoling public servants to do better is not effective".
  I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can possibly disagree with that.
  There is total confusion among Opposition Members about the private finance initiative. On the day when the virtues of the PFI were extolled by the Opposition Treasury team—I can give the hon. Gentleman the quotations, although I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister of State will do so when he winds up—the hon. Member for Peckham

  421
  was calling it "creeping privatisation". Yet the PFI was extolled by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who said it was a Labour party invention. Again, there is confusion and division in the Labour ranks.
  Hon. Members should cast their minds back to before the reforms, to the time when no one knew the price of anything at all. If one does not know the price of a treatment, a medicine or a bandage, how on earth can one plan for the future? We must spend the money wisely. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) reminded the House that the Government were castigated when we introduced sensible management programmes.
  I shall deal now with the Labour accusation of bureaucracy. The hon. Member for Fife, Central nods his head, and I suspect that he will later speak against bureaucracy with the eloquence of Satan denouncing sin. What does Labour want to do? It wants another tier of regional health authorities, which some of us have been trying to get rid of for years. That would cost £100 million, money that would be removed from patient care. The hon. Gentleman would have to get that £100 million from the Treasury if Labour were in government. The hon. Gentleman also wants a minimum wage— [Interruption.] Perhaps he does not want a minimum wage.
  Mr. McLeish: I do want it.
  Mr. Hayes: According to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the minimum wage would cost the health service £500 million, and that money will all be taken away from patient care. The Opposition's policies are all about centralisation, whereas the Government's policies on health are very simple—we have decentralised, and brought better patient care to ordinary people. Since the introduction of the "wicked" reforms, 1 million more people have been treated, and the House will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) give the figures. Some £4l billion is being spent—66 per cent. above the rate of inflation. We have the lowest waiting lists ever, and we have the citizens charter. Did one hear anything about a citizens charter under the previous Labour Government? It was derided by the Opposition as a rather sick joke—[Interruption.]—as a citizens anthem, I am grateful for the correction.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the citizens charter concept was invented by Labour local authorities long before the Prime Minister ever dreamt it up?
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he had told that to his hon. Friends on the Front Bench at the time, who were so vehemently opposed to the concept. That is yet another division in policy in the Labour party.
  Under the patients charter, we set down clear times for operations and for when ambulances should arrive at the scene, and we introduced checks and further checks.
  Mr. O'Hara: The Labour party criticised not the concept of the citizens charter, which it applauds and preceded the Government in thinking about, but the lack of resources to implement the set targets, which were utterly unrealistic.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the exact problem I was about to consider. In the past, all the
  422
  speeches from the Opposition, including those from the hon. Member for Peckham, which I read over again this morning, concentrated on the underfunding of the health service over the years. They claimed that hospitals had been starved, and promised £1 billion for them in their manifesto at the last election. Of course, the Treasury gave us an extra £1.3 billion just for 1996–97. Expenditure has greatly exceeded that manifesto pledge within just the first year of the present Parliament.
  How much money will the hon. Member for Fife, Central pledge for the NHS? How much extra money will it take to get people off the trolleys? The Opposition have not pledged to the British people one single extra penny for the NHS. How do they intend to improve the health service, apart from the added bureaucracy of which we have heard, if they do not intend to spend any more money? Will they claim to be better managers of the NHS than the Conservative Government and NHS experts?
  Let us destroy another little myth. We hear that the health service is overmanaged, but for every 26 front-line staff, there is one manager. Opposition Members should compare that with the relevant figures in France, Germany, the United States and the rest of Europe. They should check those figures and note that those managers account for just 4 per cent. of the NHS wages bill. We are very lucky to have such a management in the health service. Of course the Secretary of State is absolutely right to ensure that there is no waste and inefficiency.
  Ms Janet Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in North East Thames region, which covers his constituency, in the past five years, the number of managers has increased by no less than 260 per cent.? Does he think that that represents an efficient use of resources?
  Mr. Hayes: If the hon. Lady looked at the figures, she would understand why that has happened. There has been an increase in managers all over the country because we happen to believe in a good role for women in management.
  Mr. McLeish: Oh, come on!
  Mr. Hayes: I thought that Labour was a politically correct party. Because we recognise the value of women and the value of nurses, we have re-registered many of them as business managers.
  Ms Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about nurses or about managers? Is he saying that all the extra managers are women?
  Mr. Hayes: There are nurses of both sexes. The hon. Lady can check the accepted facts in the Library, which show that many nurses have transferred to management posts. That is all that has happened. I note that the Minister of State, Scottish Office is nodding in agreement. The figures can be sorted out another time, but I promise the hon. Lady that what I say happens to be the truth.
  If anyone wants to see decent health care, he should come to my constituency. I spent a long time fighting with respective Ministers because Harlow was genuinely underfunded under the RAWP—resource allocation working party—system. It was desperately unfair to my

  423
  constituency because so much of our money was sucked into London and elsewhere. We had some of the longest waiting times in the country and the three accident and emergency departments did not operate terribly efficiently. The service was a catastrophe because we were constantly in debt.
  I am not saying that health care in Harlow is perfect—it never will be anywhere because people's expectations are, rightly, so high. Errors will always be made. It is no use hon. Members shroud waving. [Interruption.] It is true. We all have dreadful cases that we all want to see investigated; they have arisen under every Government, and will continue to do so as long as the health service is run by human beings, not by robots. Mistakes are made, and all that we can do is institute various checks such as medical audits and clinical directorates to try to ensure that the minimum amount of errors are made in the future.
  It is not particularly helpful to read out constituency cases in the House. The best thing to do is to deal with one's NHS trust chairman or chief executive. If one does not get satisfaction then, there is always the ombudsman and, if that fails, that is when one goes to see a Minister.
  Mr. McLeish: What happens if people do not get satisfaction from anyone?
  Mr. Hayes: Hon. Members who have constituency cases should deal with local managers first. If Members go to a Minister, all that happens is that the Minister asks for a report from the region, which then asks for that report from the local hospital. It is much quicker to go direct to the manager. Every time I have had a problem, I have always had a full and frank inquiry, and I have always been able to get the answer for my constituent.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will come to Harlow in the run-up to the next general election, whenever that might be. He will see that in the last few years we have got a new computerised tomography—CT—scanner and a new MRI scanner. A new day surgery centre has just opened, along with a brand new £10 million accident and emergency centre. All that is good news for my constituents, but it is indicative of what is happening all over the country.
  Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation and I will certainly take it up if I am successful and become a Minister, but the problem is whether the hon. Gentleman will still be in Harlow to see me.
  Mr. Hayes: I look forward to welcoming the hon. Gentleman, when I hope he will be number two in the shadow health team as opposed to number three.
  Health care has improved not just in Harlow but throughout the country. Every week, a multi-million pound capital project is announced for the health service. Compare that with the record of the Labour Government, who cut capital expenditure by one third. The hon. Member for Fife, Central should consider that.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. George Mudie: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) spoke about money. I want to talk about the necessity of doubling the number of acute
  424
  beds for youngsters in Leeds. Those beds are desperately needed, and they would cost £2 million to provide. They could mean the difference between life or death to youngsters in Leeds and West Yorkshire, but the hospitals cannot use those beds because they are in debt. They cannot find the necessary £2 million because of a £12 million debt between the two trusts. To the disgust of other doctors, fundholders in Leeds, at the end of the financial year, are sitting on £2.5 million. That surplus is lying in a bank, doing nothing but earning interest for those fundholders while seriously ill children are being bussed hundreds of miles by ambulance from Leeds to Newcastle for operations. That £2.5 million is sitting in the bank for dogmatic purposes and it is not being used in my city.
  Let us talk about money for the health service. This seems to be a debate in which we are accused of waving shrouds, but Conservative Members wave capital receipts. We know where those receipts have come from as we go through Leeds and see hospital after hospital closed, asset stripped and beds closed.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is not true.
  Mr. Mudie: Not true! Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman about Killingbeck hospital and the actions of the Government and the regional health authority. Two years ago, it was decided that that much-loved hospital in my patch should be closed down. It was decided to transfer its facilities to the city centre at the multi-storey Leeds general infirmary. Once opposition from the public became apparent, the community health council decided to shift just the heart unit to LGI and to continue using Killingbeck for other NHS purposes. The people of Leeds still believe that Killingbeck is open. However, behind the scenes, the region—presumably with the Minister's knowledge, before the hospital has even shut and despite the pledge that it will continue to be used for national health service purposes—has sought planning permission for houses and industrial development for the whole 46 acres.
  When the Government talk about fresh money and wave capital receipts at Labour Members, we know how they were got—by asset stripping other resources in the city. There is the evidence. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is not growling at me now because those are the facts from my own hack yard.
  This is an intriguing and disappointing debate. It is intriguing because hon. Members seem to come from two different worlds. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) made that point earlier when she said that the shadow Health Secretary was saying one thing and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was saying the opposite. Someone is not telling the truth.
  Our motion talks of "overstretched staff", "inadequate patient care" and the
  "relentless cuts in NHS beds".
  It goes on to condemn
  "the increased amount of money spent on internal market bureaucracy".
  In their amendment, the Government congratulate themselves on the "NHS continuing to flourish".
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is.
  Mr. Mudie: Before the hon. Lady gets over-excited, let me say that I do not for a minute think that Members

  425
  such as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) do not see the health service in their patch. However, I wish that Conservative Members would not accuse us of shroud waving when we quietly, and in debates such as this, legitimately, explain the details.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mudie: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have the patience to hear my speech out. He will have the opportunity to respond.
  Which flourishing health service are the Government talking about? It is intriguing that we seem to have two health services, but it is also disappointing. I was always disappointed when legitimate complaints about the health service were made and the previous Secretary of State used to go into her trance and recite all the statistics of buildings built, staff here and staff there, but pay no attention to the complaints. That that disappointment continues is clear both from the motion and from the performance of the Secretary of State today, when he took five minutes to mention the health service.
  The Secretary of State is one of the most intelligent and caring Ministers in the Government, but if he cannot support the motion, thinks that he lives in a Britain with a flourishing health service, has little time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) describing the ordinary human cases that happen day in, day out and accuses Opposition Members of shroud waving, it is a disappointing day.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mudie: I shall give way in a moment. We are not all villains; when I look across the Table of the House, especially at those Conservative Members who are present, I have to say that they are not all villains.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mudie: I shall give way when I finish my peroration. Conservative Members are not villains, but I wish that, for one minute, when we are discussing a sensitive and important matter—it is no exaggeration to say that it is a matter of life and death—we would listen to one another. I concede that there have been improvements in the health service under the Government, but I wish that some Ministers would listen to the case for some of the improvements that are needed to make it an even better health service.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Nobody would suggest that Labour Members are villains. We merely suggest that some hospitals are more efficient than others. The hon. Gentleman may be right that there are two health services: those that are exceptionally well run and those that are not. In Lancashire as a whole, the expectation of life is a year below the national average. In my city, the expectation of life is a year above the national average. We are steeped in hospital care. We have the finest hospital in the country. It is funded in the same way as everybody else, but we run it extremely well. The nurses' mothers or fathers were probably nurses as well, male or
  426
  female. Those families have been in the hospital service for the past 100 years and they care for it. Our services are exceptionally good and they make the best use of every penny that is given to them.
  Mr. Mudie: I accept that. I live in a city with good hospitals, especially the two that I am going to discuss. I wish that the hon. Lady would listen to their problems. I do not say this of the hon. Lady, but the Secretary of State has been inclined to steamroller them. The previous Secretary of State made a habit of steamrollering genuine problems.
  The Secretary of State pointed out that there was growing concern during the winter about intensive care beds. The problem is that he suggested that it was a seasonal difficulty and gave me the impression—in which I hope that I am mistaken—that the Government think that they are well on top of it.
  I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) here. As a colleague from my city, he will be able to confirm everything that I say. I am sure that he has come to the Chamber just to do that. This is an important matter. The Secretary of State accepted that, but blithely seems to suggest that the problem is under control. If he thinks that, I hope to give him some evidence to suggest that, at least in the city of Leeds, all is not well.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I came hotfoot to the Chamber. I apologise for not having been here earlier, but I have been watching the hon. Gentleman on my television screen and heard some of what he has been saying about the wonderful health service in Leeds, a city which I am as proud to represent as he is. He has not been very fair to the people who work in the health service in Leeds or to the Government, who as he knows, are responsible for the wonderful new Leeds general infirmary which, even as we speak, is being built. Perhaps he would like to join me in going to see the 14 operating theatres being developed. The very latest technology in the world is being installed for the benefit of the people whom he and I represent.
  Mr. Mudie: Before the hon. Gentleman came in, I was saying, as did the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), that we had an excellent set of hospitals. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman had shifted channels. I had dealt with how the Leeds general infirmary was funded. If he wants to help me prevent what I described from happening, I hope that he will stay. The wonderful new LGI block is being funded by the sale of 46 acres of land in my constituency on which, at present, is a much-loved hospital.
  The people of Leeds are under the impression that they have a pledge from the Government that that site will remain a hospital. Unknown to them, the Government and their agents have applied for planning permission before the hospital has even closed. There is no large LGI block funded by a benevolent Government; it is paid for by the rape and asset stripping of a much-loved east Leeds hospital.
  If the Secretary of State, as the rational and intelligent man he is, thinks that the occupancy crisis is over, I hope that he will put in an order for the Yorkshire Evening Post, which carried the following headlines:
  "A disgrace: How many must more die, Mr. Dorrell?"

  427
  and
  "Tragic patient's eight hours on a trolley".
  In January, those who were not skiing abroad but working with their constituents will have noted the tragic death of a Bradford pensioner, a retired policeman who worked hard in his retirement for the British Heart Foundation. He was taken to, and turned away from, 12 Yorkshire hospitals. I can see some grins of amusement—I find the subject not amusing, but tragic. The man was flown 70 miles to a hospital in Scarborough where, sadly, he died shortly after arriving at the hospital. Incidents such as that prompt the Conservative newspaper in Leeds to run headlines such as the ones I have quoted for the second year running.
  A week later, while some people were still skiing—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Like the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  Mr. Mudie: The hon. Lady does get over-excited—she should be careful, as there is a shortage of emergency beds.
  A week later, a pensioner—a 70-year-old stroke victim—spent six and a half hours on a trolley and died shortly after being found a bed in one of the Leeds hospitals. The trust is arguing that the pensioner waited on the trolley not for six and a half hours, but for five hours. The same week, another pensioner of 71 was one of 13 patients—one of whom was a lady of 96—who were left on trolleys for eight hours. That pensioner arrived at 1.30 pm and was found a bed at 10 pm.
  The newspaper ran a series of articles on those incidents. In December, a 16-year-old lad suffering from a bacterial infection was taken to St. James's hospital and turned away. He was taken to hospital after hospital and died a week after. The same month, a young lad from Stockport was driven 45 miles to Leeds. I could describe case after case involving such incidents. The Secretary of State would say that I am talking about December and January, and describing seasonal matters. Every year, the LGI turns away a minimum of 118 severely ill patients who are looking for acute beds—there is nothing seasonal about that.
  St. James's hospital, the biggest teaching hospital in Europe, turns away up to six people every day. Those people are severely ill and they are brought to the hospital to be given acute beds. When no intensive care beds can be found, those severely ill people who need urgent operations have to go from hospital to hospital.
  I am not making a joke of that, but I want to make the point in the context of my speech. I am not trying to make political points, but simply saying that if ours is a flourishing health service, it should flourish a bit better. To the individuals or families involved, it is no joke, but a matter of life and death. In several cases, those involved have, tragically, died.
  The LGI has five children's intensive care beds, and needs six. The extra bed is currently being run by doctors who work overtime simply to try to meet the demand. St. James's hospital has three such beds and needs six, which would cost £2 million. There is no likelihood of those severely ill children being found those beds.
  428
  When I said that I hoped that hon. Members would regard my speech as constructive criticism, there were groans and mutterings that it was a politician talking. Dr. Bodenham works at the LGI in Leeds. He says that the problems have occurred for years—they are not seasonal, as the Minister suggested. He states:
  "We have been complaining about the lack of resources for years, even before I started here four years ago.
  Basically, nothing happens. They set up working parties then nothing happens. What the public expects is going up and up but resources are not there."
  A spokesperson for the Leeds general infirmary trust said:
  "There is a national problem of rising admissions to hospitals, which has caused the problem here.
  There are more people coming into accident and emergency… It is simply that there are more patients than there are beds."
  The two doctors who run the intensive care units in both the hospitals undertook a report. It stated:
  "Intensive care facilities in Leeds and in Yorkshire as a whole are inadequate.
  There are insufficient high dependency facilities in Leeds."
  Dr. Harris of Bradford said:
  "But the big issue is not what we did at my surgery but the crisis with intensive care bed availability."
  I pay tribute to the local paper, the Yorkshire Evening Post, which has carried out a good campaign. If the Minister wants to smile, I hope that he will explain why he does so to the Yorkshire Evening Post. That newspaper has simply highlighted the fact that people are dying in our city because we do not have enough intensive care beds.
  The Yorkshire Evening Post received a promise from the present Secretary of State that he would do something about the problem. He set up a review. The Yorkshire Evening Post and the people of Leeds are unconvinced by his promise and, in order to be fair to the present Secretary of State, I shall explain why. A year ago, the previous Secretary of State was confronted by a similar campaign after the death of a two-year-old child and an elderly pensioner. The previous Secretary of State said that she would take action; we believe that she did so, but no one can find out what action she took. This month, when she was in the city in her new ministerial capacity, the evening paper asked her where her report was. She refused to comment.
  It was not a matter of someone making thoughtless or destructive criticisms; we have raised a genuine problem. The previous Secretary of State promised action, but that has not materialised and people have since died. We have now been given a similar promise by the present Secretary of State and I look for action and sympathy. Ministers must take off their rose-coloured spectacles and realise that, although they may have made achievements in the health service of which they are proud, there is still a long way to go.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate at last. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may have noticed an anomaly in our proceedings: according to the Order Paper, today is supposed to be an Opposition day initiated by the Labour party, but for most of the past few hours the Opposition

  429
  Benches have been almost empty and we have practically been debating with ourselves. I think that Opposition Members may have been drafted in from the Tea Room and the Labour Whips Office to address the House at some length in order to continue the debate from the Opposition Benches.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and one or two other Opposition Members did not seem to be speaking of the health service that I know, and nor does the Opposition motion. The sort of language used by the hon. Member for Peckham, which was criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), is exactly the sort of language that puts fear in the hearts of those who hear it. That is particularly true of the elderly people in this country who, on hearing soundbites on the radio and reading accounts in newspapers, seriously fear that the health service is falling apart. In fact, it most definitely is not.
  We have a health service which, as various of my hon. Friends have said, is having £41 billion a year spent on it, is treating 3 million more people per year than it was in 1979—1 million more people per year than it was in 1991, when the reforms came in—and which accounts for 3,500 more people per day. That is not a health service which is in decline or falling apart limb from limb, as the hon. Member for Peckham claimed. It is a health service that is growing, and coping with the demands being placed on it. Those demands are considerably greater because there are more elderly people than there used to be. More intricate treatments are also being conducted, and people therefore expect far more to be done for them.
  The Labour party criticises what apparently the Conservative Government are doing. Labour Members obviously did not read what one of their colleagues, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), wrote in The Times last week. He said: "Labour's health policy will not look credible at the general election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives in recent years".
  We need cite no more evidence to Labour Members than that. Those are the words of one of their colleagues, who recognises what the Government have been doing since 1979 and will continue to do, as may be appreciated by the pledges made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget.
  Rather than telling a grim tale, such as those that we heard from one or two Labour Members, I wish to pay a great tribute to my local hospital—Kingston hospital—which delivers fine service to my constituents and to the people of Kingston. It does so despite the fact that we have many elderly people and some neighbouring councils are not taking elderly people out of hospital quickly enough back into care in the community. We have now put in place a discharge liaison nurse to facilitate the smoother running of those procedures.
  Kingston hospital faced what was described by the chairman of the health trust and by the general manager as "an emergency situation"—a serious incident—during the new year period. Many hon. Members will recall that on 31 December 1995 there were extreme weather conditions, with icy rain falling on the pavements. As a result, there were many more emergency admissions to Kingston hospital than might remotely have been expected, and many more than had been catered for.
  430
  During the next three days, staff who in the normal way should have been having their bank holidays were drafted in. Operations took place, with double trauma operating lists in the operating theatres. The day surgery unit, which should have been off duty during the bank holiday, was called in and worked constantly. It was reported to me that staff worked solidly between 4 pm on Saturday 30 December 1995 and 5 pm on Monday 1 January 1996. Thirty-five full orthopaedic operations were completed in the main theatres, when usually only five such procedures would have been expected during that period.
  I therefore wish to place on the record, here in the House of Commons, a tribute to the staff of Kingston hospital. The chairman of the health trust, Mr. Rowan Cole, wrote to me three days ago:
  "The situation we faced over the New Year holiday was very unusual indeed. Our staff, in spite of great difficulties, coped with the situation magnificently, as indeed we would have to do in major incident conditions if there was a local disaster producing similar numbers of casualties."
  That is the type of health service that we have gradually begun to expect, and the type of health service to which our Government are committed.
  I believe that we are doing a good job. We are producing the resources. Labour Members have read out in the House details of individual cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said, they should take up such cases with their national health trusts instead of describing the details in the House to produce soundbites. By contrast, Conservative Members come to the Chamber to praise the work of the national health service in our localities, and rightly so.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I shall not recite a litany of individual cases. In the past year, I have spent many weeks and months writing letters on behalf of many of my constituents, who have been on trolleys for hours or who have been on waiting lists or whose appointments have been cancelled and so on. The Minister knows that.
  Last year, I also called for an inquiry into my local hospital following the press reports and the problems that we had but, in typical fashion, the then Secretary of State passed the buck to the North Thames region, which passed the buck to the health authority, which passed the buck back to the trust. That is typical of the way in which the health service is run today.
  I shall draw attention to the wider problems of the north-east London area. The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, referred to "unexpected problems" in admissions to accident and emergency departments in the last two months.
  We are in January 1996. Since the end of September 1995, all local hospitals in north-east London have experienced extreme pressure and, to quote the words of a letter to me by the chief executive of the Redbridge Healthcare trust,
  "throughout October and November, trolley waits, overnight in A and E have been commonplace at King George Hospital".
  As I understand it, almost every night since October 1995, patients have been waiting overnight on trolleys at my local hospital.
  King George hospital is not alone. The local newspapers have referred to incidents there, but there have been others in all the other hospitals in our region. On 19 October 1995, the Ilford Recorder reported:

  431
  "Hospital crisis sparks bed plea.
  Ambulances were asked to avoid taking patients to King George Hospital again on Sunday because there were not enough Accident and Emergency beds.
  The call went out from the hospital in Goodmayes to the London Ambulance Service just after 9am asking crews to avoid King George if possible. Blue light cases, ie emergencies, were still allowed.
  The situation continued for about six hours."
  In November 1995, the local medical committee had a discussion about what had happened at the other hospital in the Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority—Whipps Cross hospital, which is a very large hospital under the Forest Healthcare trust. As the Redbridge Guardian and West Essex Gazette of 16 November 1995 reported:
  "We're full up, says hospital.
  Even some 999 patients are refused admission.
  Patients were turned away from Whipps Cross Hospital this week when management admitted hospital resources were stretched to their limits.
  The hospital was closed to admissions and victims of major accidents on Tuesday 'to ensure patient safety'"—
  [Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that that is funny, but I am sure that their constituents would not think so if they suffered the same problems.
  When we discussed the situation with the local medical committee the following week, it reported that two extra wards had been opened at the hospital to try to cope with the problem. However, there were not enough staff to maintain them and the decision was taken to close the hospital on the ground that nursing practices had become unsafe. No other local hospitals could assist. King George hospital still had 17 patients on trolleys from the previous night. Three ambulances had waited at the door of the hospital, but there were no trolleys available.
  The same situation was narrowly avoided in the week of 24 November. Discussions took place at that time between the chief executives of the trusts in Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Newham and Hackney in an attempt to adopt a co-ordinated approach to the problem. That was the situation in October and November last year.
  In December, the Newham Recorder carried a front-page story on 13 December under the headline, "Hospital Crisis". The article stated:
  "Resources at Newham General Hospital are being stretched to the limit according to the Director of Nursing, who admitted waiting times have tipped 14 hours".
  In a story entitled "Prescription for Disaster", the Ilford Recorder of 4 January stated:
  "Health bosses in Redbridge have admitted the overnight closure of Oldchurch Hospital's"—
  in Romford—
  "accident and emergency department to ambulance cases created chaos in casualty at King George".
  The newspaper also carries the story of a 65-year-old woman who waited 12 hours for a bed at the hospital after suffering a stroke and the case of a two-year-old toddler who had fallen and hit his head and did not receive treatment for 12 hours. They are examples of real suffering experienced by real people, many of whom are my constituents, but Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers do not care because they do not use the national health service.
  432
  We face a very serious problem in the North Thames region. I asked for an inquiry to be conducted last May, but the situation is now far worse. It is not the fault of the staff—the nurses, doctors and the hard-pressed administrators. It is the fault of the system that they have to try to administer and work with in order to treat patients.
  I visited King George hospital's accident and emergency department at 10.30 on a Friday evening at the end of October. I was at the hospital for about six hours, during which I saw unbelievable pressure placed on the patients. People with broken limbs, head wounds and other conditions waited four or five hours to see doctors. There was massive overcrowding and the hospital had no real facilities to cope with families, especially children. That occurs day after day and night after night in the hospitals of north-east London. Families and staff are suffering along with the patients and, regrettably, the situation is worsening.
  Conservative Members have wheeled out all kinds of platitudes and statistics, but let us consider what has happened so far in 1996. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) referred to the new year period. On Monday 1 January, which was a bank holiday, King George hospital was very busy and on 2 January I was told that it was swamped. More than 20 patients were waiting on trolleys at that hospital and 45 patients were waiting on trolleys at Whipps Cross hospital on 2 January. On the same day, the London ambulance service reported that every hospital in London was full. Nine hospitals were closed and all hospitals were turning away ambulances. Ambulances searched as far as North Middlesex hospital in one direction and Basildon in the other in a desperate attempt to find beds so that people could be admitted to hospital.
  Whipps Cross hospital deals with those problems regularly. As it is an old hospital, it has some flexibility in that it can put old, disused wards into service temporarily in an attempt to cope with patient numbers. King George hospital, however, is a new hospital: it has no space and no flexibility, and it is already bursting at the seams. We are told that the winter has been particularly severe this year, but that is not really true: there has been no epidemic.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, there has.
  Mr. Gapes: There may have been an epidemic of Conservative Members quitting their party, but it has not been a particularly bad winter in terms of the medical services. What will happen if there is another disaster on the scale of the King's Cross tragedy? How could our system cope with a disaster the like of which occurred on the Tokyo underground?
  The Government, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, have pared our health service and our accident and emergency departments to the bone. There is no flexibility in the system, which is crying out for space and the ability to deal with the unexpected. The Government's policy, which is based on accountancy rather than care, has led us to that situation. We cannot cope now, so how shall we be able to cope if there is a real crisis in the future?
  I understand that there is a national shortage of D-grade nurses. We are told that the number of practice nurses assisting general practitioners has increased. That has

  433
  taken the pressure off GPs, but it does nothing to solve the problem—in fact, it complicates it—of the nursing shortage in the hospital system.
  Why are patient numbers increasing? The population is aging and people are becoming more dependent on the health service, but there is a wider and deeper problem: the failure of the Government's community care policy. Local authorities do not have enough occupational therapists, and local government resources have been cut to such an extent that they are unable to cope. People remain in hospital for weeks or months because there is no social support in the community. But the Government cannot use that as an excuse for hospital bed shortages, because ultimately they are responsible for that problem, too.
  The problems in my area are reflected across the nation. However, the north-east Thames area faces some unique difficulties. The Redbridge trust is being asked to treat more patients while receiving 3 per cent. less funding. It currently operates on the target of the 12-month waiting list and it is trying to keep to that target, but the general crisis caused by accident and emergency department closures and hospital closures means that all hospitals in the area—they are in financial deficit from Tower Bridge to Basildon—are in danger of defaulting on that target and incurring financial penalties.
  In a public relations stunt, the Government have said that the 12-month waiting list will come into force on 31 March and that trolley waits will be reduced to a two-hour maximum. Conservative Members should try telling that to my constituents who have waited for 30, 24 and 16 hours on trolleys in hospital corridors. If the hospitals have to meet that target, how will they cope with the other targets set for them?
  The accident and emergency department at Oldchurch hospital is to be closed. The community health council in Redbridge estimates that the result will be 20,000 extra admissions per year for King George hospital. But that hospital does not have the space to take those patients. It is situated just two miles further along the A12, but it does not have the capacity to deal with extra admissions. So who will suffer as a result? It will be the patients—my constituents—who cannot receive treatment in their local constituency hospital. Financial penalties and the local trust's other difficulties will only compound the problem.
  The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts states that
  "hospitals are faced with conflicting national priorities. On the one hand, they are expected to meet the Patient's Charter guarantee… At the same time, the Patient's Charter stipulates that nobody should wait for a bed in accident and emergency departments longer than four hours".
  That is to go down to two hours, but the association adds:
  "A study of 20 hospitals in the Thames region found that only 18 per cent. of patients received a bed within two hours."
  The figure for the rest of the UK was 80 per cent., but how can north-east London possibly cope?
  The situation is so serious that I fear for the future of many of my sick and elderly constituents. I am not shroud-waving—it is the responsibility of any elected representative to bring to public notice the serious problems that doctors, nurses, administrators, and constituents and their families, draw to our attention. If something is not done in terms of extra resourcing and
  434
  more accident and emergency beds, and if priority is not given to analysing the problem, the situation will grow even worse for my constituents and people throughout north London. I fear for the future.
  9 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: The description of doom and gloom by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to which I listened bore no resemblance to the health service in Leicestershire—the county that I represent. The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) pointed out a north-south divide in health services. Leicestershire has none of the problems that they mentioned, and I wonder whether we were listening to a severe distortion of the reality of today's health service.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) alluded to problems in his constituency, but the changes in Leicestershire and the midlands since the last Labour Government departed office have been substantial, and represent great improvements.
  I want to talk a little about Leicestershire, but I also wear the hat of the long-standing treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine. In that capacity, I will refer to trends in Europe and the United States that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be addressing as demand for alternative and complementary medicine in the UK increases at an exponential rate.
  In 1979, the discharge rate at which patients left Leicestershire hospitals was running at 6,500 a year. By 1987, the figure was 12,500—nearly a 90 per cent. improvement during that Conservative period of office. In 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, 15,500 patients were discharged. That shows a threefold improvement in the number of patients being treated in the county.
  The hon. Member for Peckham said that the health service was being torn limb from limb. She could not have noted the substantial capital investment in Leicestershire. Major developments at the Leicester royal infirmary include two new phases, the new children's hospital being just one of them. Currently, development work on an oncology unit is being undertaken. At the Glenfield general hospital, £50 million has been spent on development. That hospital specialises in cardiac and general acute services, and it has one of the most modern scanners in the world.
  There have been improvements also in the Leicestershire mental health service trust. Approximately £25 million has been invested in new accommodation to replace the old institution, Carlton Hayes hospital. At Leicester general hospital, another £35 million has been spent.
  At Hinckley, at the heart of my constituency, Fosse health trust has revealed plans for effectively a new £9 million hospital. Five years ago, the fate of that hospital hung in the balance. I remember meeting the chairman of Leicestershire health authority to discuss whether or not it should be closed and arguing that it was essential for the town, and that it was at an important location on the A5.
  Since the reforms that my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have put in place, there has been a rapid development and expansion of improved facilities. It will be for Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to

  435
  consider the planning application that is before that authority, but in principle that is an excellent proposal for the town.
  The range of services offered at the district hospital in Hinckley has increased exponentially. It is now undertaking outpatient work and minor operations that could never be performed at the hospital before—principally because of referrals by GP fundholders, the number of whom is increasing all the time as doctors see the benefits of controlling their budgets and having the right to send patients to whichever hospital they choose. If GPs want to send patients to George Eliot hospital in Warwickshire or to hospitals in Leicestershire, they can do so. It will considerably encourage my constituents to know that a larger number of operations will be available at the enlarged Hinckley hospital.
  Wearing now my alternative and complementary medicine hat, it may interest hon. Members to be reminded of the range of treatments available. They include osteopathy and chiropractic for back problems; herbal medicine and homeopathy; acupuncture, which originated in China; aromatherapy, which is the use of essential oils to help repair the body; allergy assessments; dietary improvements; and healing, which has been on the edge of alternative and complementary medicine but is now coming in from the cold to be considered as a serious treatment. The public have voted with their feet in respect of alternative medicine, and there is a huge demand for such services.
  The growth has been phenomenal. It is not surprising that, on 10 January in another place, there was a three-hour debate on the subject, which was attended by no fewer than 80 peers. That well-attended debate is a reflection of people's interest in alternative medicine. However, out of a total annual health budget of approximately £37 billion, only £1 million is spent on supporting projects and research into alternative and complementary medicine.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that something is out of line, because demand for services has become very great. It is time that the Department of Health considered increasing the amount of money available for research.
  In the United States since 1993, there has been an Office of Alternative Medicine, and well funded it is too. In Germany, the Government have been tasked by Parliament to help with scientific evaluations of alternative medicine. In Switzerland, since 1990, there has been a national research programme on alternative medicine.
  In Europe, the report produced by Paul Lannoye for the European Parliament's Environment Committee proposed that 10 million ecu should be spent on research over a five-year period. My hon. Friend the Minister should accept the point that other countries are introducing proposals to increase funding, or they have already done so. I respectfully suggest that he should do the same.
  According to my European colleague, Giles Chichester, a Member of the European Parliament who spoke to the all-party group recently, the United Kingdom is in many respects ahead on alternative treatments, because we are
  436
  regulating them in a step-by-step approach. We have had the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Osteopaths Act 1993, and other Acts will follow.
  On behalf of the members of the all-party group, I wish to thank all the disparate practitioners who visit us to give us their views. I also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues for the sympathetic hearing that they have given to alternative and complementary medicine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he was the Under-Secretary, agreed that alternative and complementary medicine could be made available on the NHS, providing that a doctor took clinical responsibility. That has had a significant impact on increasing the level of service available and the amount of money that has been spent by the health service on alternative medicine.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, in a recent speech in the other place, mentioned an organisation called Foresight, which has had great success targeting the health of couples to improve the probability of conception. It had spectacular results, but it was instructed to carry out a double-blind trial. Given the evidence of an 89 per cent. success rate, that seems unduly harsh.
  Chinese medicine is growing in popularity, and has been successful in treating eczema. Tough restrictions and conditions have been imposed on practitioners who seek funding, despite the fact that there are 500,000 professionals practising in 1,500 hospitals throughout China. Surely that is evidence enough of the success of the treatment.
  My message for the Secretary of State and the Minister is that demand for alternative and complementary medicine in all its many different hues has never before been so great, and it will increase. I suggest that it is not in the interests of the Department of Health to spend so little—£1 million out of £37 billion—on those important medical treatments.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: With all due respect to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), I must express my frustration after listening to such a lengthy excursion into alternative medicine. It has left me with very little time to discuss the ills of the national health service. They are what concern my constituents, for whom alternative medicine is not exactly an everyday option. In the few minutes I have at my disposal, I want to refer to the real experience of real people on Merseyside and in Knowsley, South, and to the accountability, or lack of it, of the NHS to my constituents.
  Despite all the fine words about the magnificent resources being globally allocated to the NHS, inadequate resources have been allocated to Merseyside, given its demographic and medical needs. I shall base my remarks on one battle in the health service in our area—over the closure of the accident and emergency department of Broadgreen hospital.
  By a quirk of a line on a map, the hospital is not in my constituency, but it could have been: it is on the other side of the road. It serves my constituency and is located on the junction of Liverpool's inner ring road and the M62, which leads to east Lancashire and joins the M57 and the M6, the main north-west route. One would have thought that an ideal location for an accident and emergency

  437
  department, so I was deeply concerned about the loss of such a well-placed facility and the consequent impact on my constituents.
  I was assured that magnificent new resources would be provided at the Royal Liverpool hospital, the trust that eventually merged with Broadgreen, and at Whiston hospital at the other end of my constituency. I did not want the closure to be effected until the new resources were available and on stream. I was assured that they would be, but as it happens, we lost the battle.
  In the course of the battle to retain the Broadgreen A and E department, the public of Merseyside and my constituents lost all confidence in the people who were running the trusts. Even as a public representative, I found it difficult to get information and to make my voice heard. The closure was agreed by unaccountable NHS trust appointees. We suspected that the rationalisation would be accelerated—I had no illusions about that.
  From my local government experience, at the delivery end and on the receiving end of rationalisations, I have learnt all the tricks; and when there were suggestions that the closure might have to be accelerated because staff could not be appointed to fill essential posts, I certainly had my suspicions. I asked why the staff were not appointed earlier and advertised for in good time.
  Next, the closure took place, and I was assured of all the magnificent facilities that would be available at the Royal and Whiston hospitals. Instead, I found that patients were waiting as long as 12 hours for beds. There were no spaces for emergency cases. Ill and even terminally ill people were having to wait for hours in casualty. The surgical assessment unit had to be kept open all night so that people could lie there on beds. Emergency admissions had to be put in beds in the reopened but doomed Broadgreen hospital.
  This information was given me in early November by a mole in the hospital trust, whose identity must be protected—a sad reflection on the system. The mole told me:
  "The weather so far this autumn has been kind. I shudder to think what will happen if the weather turns cruel in the winter."
  So it turned out. Before Christmas, all the things that people were worried about in Merseyside happened.
  Ten days before Christmas, there was an accident just around the corner from my house. A lady suffered multiple injuries and had to be transferred from Whiston hospital while connected up to drips and all sorts of life support systems. She was taken to Oldham, 40 miles away. Her condition was stable when she left, but deteriorated during the 40-mph journey through snow along the motorway. Ten days later, she died. I shall protect her identity, out of respect for her grieving family.
  On Christmas eve, a heart attack patient presented herself at Whiston hospital and had to be transferred to Wythenshawe—another journey out of the area. I remind hon. Members that, if critically ill patients are transferred out of the area, the whole family is in crisis. My constituents in Knowsley, South should not have to travel 40 miles during their own crisis to visit sick friends and family.
  The crisis in the NHS came to a head before Christmas, and I saw a system that had finally broken down. Emergency services on Merseyside could not cope. Beds were needed on Merseyside, but they could be provided
  438
  only out of the area. Ambulances that were needed for emergencies on Merseyside had to travel large distances out of the area and were not available for emergencies on Merseyside.
  I am describing the failure of a system and the lack of accountability to my constituents of the people who run it. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) referred to returning the NHS to ordinary people. Is that what he means? Not ordinary people like Margaret Pritchard, my constituent, who provides me with information and keeps an eye on what is happening. She has been told that her requests for simple information about what is going on and what difficulties are being experienced in the hospitals on Merseyside will no longer be answered by the chairman's office. Delivery of the national health service to the people of Knowsley, South? Not on your life.
  9.21 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has returned from the school run. Perhaps she will hear something from me in the remaining two or three minutes about just how the national health service is "falling apart limb from limb" in Burton-upon-Trent.
  The Queen has just opened the brand spanking new Burton district NHS hospital, costing £34 million. It is one of the best equipped in the country. It has 463 beds, which is 294 more than the old hospital had. It is modern, spacious and cheerful, and has integrated acute services. This is not a system that is falling apart limb from limb.
  The hospital won the charter mark for excellence—the only acute hospital to do so in 1994—from the Prime Minister. It led the country in day surgery cases and has now increased the number of such cases by 10 per cent. We have slashed waiting lists, and nobody now has to wait for as long as nine months. The hospital leads the country in information technology. It has the first fully operational computerised information system, which is being spread to general practitioners, who can get their information from the same computer.
  Ten per cent. more treatments take place there. Some 8,000 more of my constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies are able to access the new Burton hospital. This is not a system that is falling apart limb from limb.
  There has been a magnificent reduction in waiting lists—down from 4,686 in December 1992 to 2,800 last December, which is a 40 per cent. reduction. I can go on, but, alas, I do not have the time. We have had two new nurse specialists from the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund, who are doing magnificent work in helping cancer patients, in the finest traditions of those nurses. Last year, the Burton Hospitals NHS trust screened a higher proportion of women than anywhere else in the west midlands region.
  The Burton trust has not been the only great NHS achievement in my part of the world. There is also the Premier Health NHS trust, which opened a £700,000 psychiatric unit only last year on the district hospital premises. There are 13 fundholder practices in nine funds, representing 85,000 patients and costing about £14.5 million.
  Before all that was set up, I heard plenty of dread prophecies about what would happen, but I hear no complaints now about the concept of fundholding, either

  439
  from GPs or from patients. They now receive better direct patient care, more quickly, efficiently and effectively and to a higher standard. My doctors and patients will be most interested to learn that Labour, if it ever got into power, would abolish fundholding practices and all the successes that went with them.
  In my part of the world, the Staffordshire ambulance service is now better equipped, better organised and better performing—the fifth best in Britain. What on earth is the Labour party talking about when it speaks of the wreckage of Conservative policies, with the national health service falling apart limb from limb? It is preposterous that, in a debate such as this, so much time should be spent attacking what is clearly succeeding throughout Britain.
  I know that, from place to place and from time to time, one can find things going wrong, but I am fed up with having to try to explain to people that what the Labour party says about the overall picture simply does not apply to my region. There are magnificent achievements there, and it is offensive to those who dedicate so much of their time—doctors, nurses and staff workers in the hospital—continually to have their achievements run down and rubbished by the Labour party.
  I am pleased that I have managed—I thank everyone concerned—to say a few words which will perhaps correct the false impression. I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham, when she has finished delivering her children to their schools, will take a little drive around the country so that she can see what is really happening.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: There have been some excellent contributions in the debate. I want to single out two and, to show my impartiality, there will be one from each side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) demolished the Government's excuses for the crisis over Christmas in terms of bed numbers. It is useful to have an authoritative view on health care in the House and I congratulate my hon. Friend.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on her contribution. She is Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, which has produced an excellent report on continuing care, and we await with interest its evaluation of the Government's response.
  That said, the Government have a real problem. I recall the famous John Maples memorandum. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State going on from a sedentary position, but I think that he will enjoy the next two or three comments. That memorandum suggested that the Tories should bury the NHS in any debate in any part of the country. Having listened to Conservative Members today, in particular the Secretary of State, I believe that that was probably the soundest piece of advice that they have been given in many years.
  The Tories have a threefold crisis when it comes to their concept of a one-nation health service. We are now seeing the cumulative effect of the so-called reforms during the past three or four years and the Government's barely concealed incompetence. That rich mixture is fuelled by the obsession with privatisation.
  The problem for the Government is that when the public perception of what is going on matches up with the reality facing patients, they have a crisis of credibility. As the
  440
  Secretary of State undertakes his so-called charm offensive around the country, he would do well to face up to the fact that his problem is one of credibility, not charm.
  The other part of the problem facing the Government is the inescapable conclusion about the future of the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), in an excellent contribution to the debate, highlighted the fact that the Government were moving slowly but surely towards a privatised health service and, at best, a residual NHS. There has been fragmentation, contractualisation and commercialisation. If, for any reason, the Government won the next election, which is unlikely, the British public should be aware that those would be the building blocks for a privatised health service.
  The other point that concerns us is the apparent tale of two health services. According to Conservative Members who have spoken up, there are no problems, and Opposition contributions have merely been encompassed by shroud-waving criticism. But if the Government think that everything in the garden is lovely, the public, patients, specialists within the health services, doctors, consultants, nurses and Labour are all marching together.
  Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman had really listened to what was said by Conservative Members, he would know that no one suggested that everything in the garden was lovely. Everyone recognises the existence of a huge challenge, not only in Britain, but in every civilised and industrialised country in the world. Several of us enumerated the reasons for that. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party ignore the challenge, because they have no solutions to offer; they try to pretend that there is no problem. There is a problem, however, and the Conservative party is contributing to the achievement of a magnificent solution following the mess that Labour left in 1979.
  Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to find that we discussing semantics. Conservative Members call it a challenge; we call it a crisis.
  In fact, I listened to all the speeches with great interest, noting the praise for the Chairman of the Health Select Committee. The fact remains, however, that Labour Members were accused of shroud waving and ambulance chasing. Conservative Members have been impertinent enough to suggest that we should not raise the cases that we have raised in the Chamber. That brings us back to the Maples memorandum: "If there is a problem, just bury it." We will not bury important NHS issues; we will raise them at every possible opportunity.
  The Government tell us that they care for the national health service, but that is not the case if linage and word counts are anything to go by. At last year's Tory party conference, the party chairman, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), devoted three lines of a 22-page speech to the national health service. The Deputy Prime Minister did not mention it once in a 19-page speech. Five lines of the Prime Minister's 31-page speech dealt with the subject. In those 72 pages of speeches, eight lines were devoted to the NHS.
  Conservatives' attitude to the NHS is akin to Lady Thatcher's attitude to the Prime Minister: grudging, insincere and deeply damaging, with the suggestion that the object of criticism is not sufficiently right wing.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many lines of his speech the leader of his party devoted to the health service?
  Mr. McLeish: What defines the difference between ourselves and the Conservative party is the fact that the leader of the Labour party is committed to a one-nation health service. The Conservatives are not committed to a one-nation anything.
  We have been accused of shroud waving. We have heard of grim tales, and of people being scared by soundbites. The health service, however, touches everyone in the country; it is a precious asset. Meanwhile, we see headlines such as:s "Children are dying and we can't offer a bed"
  in the Evening Standard,
  "Hole in the heart of the NHS"
  in the Sunday Express—referring to children in intensive care—and
  "Crisis for Britain's sick children"
  in The Independent.
  Are we making those stories up? It seems to us that the Government simply will not pay attention to the crisis that has engulfed the national health service. We could present a litany tonight, including ward closures, bed closures, staff morale, lack of trainees, accident and emergency problems, failure to meet "The Health of the Nation" indicators and poverty as a cause of malnutrition. There is also the way in which the Government have driven dentistry out of the NHS. Those are the issues that dominate the agenda of most ordinary people, and the Government ignore them at their peril. This is the NHS in 1996, Tory-style.
  We should examine the case that we are making against the Government. The first issue, which arose recently, is poverty triggering malnutrition. It is happening not in 1896 but in 1996. An article in The Observer was headlined:
  "Poverty triggers UK diet crisis".
  True to form, the Government commissioned a report, but saw the results and decided to shelve it. I challenge the Minister to comment on that damning report. More important, will he place a copy of it in the House of Commons Library?
  The second issue is preventive health care. We thought that there was a consensus about the future of such care. Why is it then that the NHS is being pushed out of dentistry, which is vital as a preventive health measure, especially for children? A recent survey conducted by the British Dental Association shows that even 44 per cent. of Conservative Members believe that, in 10 years' time, the NHS will be outwith dentistry. That is a condemnation and a sad indictment of a so-called one-nation health service.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way because I need to make some progress.
  A one-nation health service can accommodate the cash to provide for dentistry.
  442
  The third issue is resources. We hear the Government say that funding always increases by more than inflation, but the Government must face real questions about waste. They are always lecturing people on their fiscal prudence, but they are happy to see £100 million in England tied up in GP fundholding balances held by health authorities. As some of my hon. Friends have said, that money should be spent immediately on the vital things that are missing from the NHS.
  True to form, the Government have ensured that, in the most recent year for which figures are available, nearly £500 million has been spent on non-NHS providers. That is a leakage from the NHS. At the same time as children are touring the Pennines looking for a bed in a hospital, £500 million is being spent on non-NHS provision. That is a challenge to the Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are harping on from sedentary positions, but the harsh reality is that our NHS needs national investment, not the approach that is being taken by the Government.
  I know that the Secretary of State for Health will not like this, but his so-called purge of bureaucrats comes too late. The Government have closed the door after the horse has bolted, which is typical. How laughable that, at the Conservative party conference, he should suggest that we tackle bureaucracy. The key issue for us on waste is that a large part of the finance is being spent on efficiency measures. We want an efficient NHS, but we cannot be bothered with more and more people policing an internal market where hospitals are competing with hospitals for patients' beds. That is ridiculous.
  Over the next two or three months, we shall develop the issue of wasting taxpayers' money, but I want to return to the role of the Secretary of State for Health. Over Christmas, he decided to relax the drinks limit. That is nothing special in itself, but even the Conservative Medical Society, whose patron is the Prime Minister, said in its submission on the review:
  "At a recent meeting of the Conservative Medical Society Executive there was unanimous opposition to any raising of the so called sensible limits for alcohol consumption.
  Any increase in recommended 'safe' limits is likely to encourage some or many individuals to consume nearer the levels to cause problems."
  It said that about 1 million people in Britain have alcohol-related problems. The question for the Secretary of State is this: if medical opinion was not moving him, and if the Conservative Medical Society was so opposed to the relaxation of the limits, why did he change the limits over Christmas and whose pockets were being lined by that development?
  I also want the Secretary of State to respond to questions on bureaucracy. There is no point in shedding crocodile tears now, when during the past five years we have seen an increase of nearly 20,000 managers, while 50,000 front-line nurses have simply left the wards. It is important for the Secretary of State to come clean and explain that the Government have made historic mistakes. There has been burgeoning bureaucracy while, at the same time, they have sacrificed what patients and the public want—front-line care at the sharp end.
  It is also crucial that we examine an experiment that is taking place in Scotland, in which the Secretary of State for Health does not seem to be interested. The experiment, in Stonehaven, is about clinical services and every other

  443
  service being simply passed over to the private sector. In an interesting article in The Sunday Times about the Secretary of State for Health, unfortunately headed:
  "Misfit with a mission against meddling",
  the Secretary of State said:
  "What I'm not in favour of is privatising clinical care".
  We need to find out tonight—[Interruption.] I should be happy to send a copy of The Sunday Times interview to the Secretary of State. We did not bother with the other sources because one is damning enough.
  The Secretary of State is quite happy for a poll tax-type experiment to take place again in northern Scotland, but is he willing to tell the House that he will not allow clinical services to go into the private sector in England? Double standards are being operated by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Health. The right hon. Gentleman should clear up that confusion as quickly as possible.
  Labour Members want our Secretary of State for Health to be active on some of the issues that concern us. There has been much discussion recently about pregnant women being manacled by the Prison Service, but I did not hear the Secretary of State make much of an outburst about it. I should also like to reveal to the House that a Daily Mirror article of 12 January reveals that women prisoners who are being treated for cancer and pneumonia are also shackled. I expect the Secretary of State to give a lead and tell the Home Secretary that such barbaric behaviour is unacceptable. The Secretary of State for Health has been conspicuous by his absence on that issue.
  We have raised with the Secretary of State the issue of intensive care beds for children. The tragedy about a hand-wringing, couldn't-care-less Government is that they say, "We don't know the answers to the questions you asked." On 16 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) asked the Secretary of State
  "what is the present occupancy rate of intensive care paediatric beds?"—[Official Report, 16 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 549]
  The Minister said that, because the information on bed occupancy was not available, the Department had asked the Sheffield Children's hospital to find out the bed occupancy rate from the 17 units. Is not that a damning indictment? People are concerned about serious issues, and this Secretary of State is not aware of the figures. The Department of Health instead asked the hospital to find the information that the health service executive should have had immediately available. Again, that speaks volumes for what is going on.
  If there is one single issue on which morale reels in the health service, it is staffing. If one reads submissions from the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association or GPs' committees, on every occasion, one finds a situation in which—[Interruption.] The Minister for Health can sit there and rant, saying "More, more," but I can tell him what the nation would like to see: more nurses, more trainee nurses and far fewer bureaucrats.
  When are the Government going to stop pretending that the real world does not exist? When will Government Front-Bench Members acknowledge that, during the past five years—I shall repeat the figures for the Secretary of State; he got very excited when they were read to him
  444
  earlier—50,000 front-line staff have disappeared from the wards? We have 19,000 fewer nurses in training, which is a scandal for investment in the new millennium. At the same time, the Government keep feeding through more and more money for an extra 20,000 managers.
  How can the Secretary of State wonder why morale is low, when nurses give more than the hours they work suggest in terms of commitment, dedication and skill? How do they feel when they see a Government who deliberately ignore their needs and patients' needs and push the growth of a burgeoning bureaucracy on every possible occasion?
  If the Government were serious about the national health service, they would stop acting on the basis of hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil, and start to get to grips with the problems that surround them. [Interruption.] The Government Whips are suggesting that I sit down. They do not like hearing the truth about what is happening to the NHS throughout the country. It is crucial to tell the Government that, if they believe in a one-nation health service—in view of their recent behaviour, that is a laughable concept—they must stop shuffling structures and start to think about patients and the professionals who do an excellent job on our behalf.
  Unfortunately, some time will elapse before we take over the national health service. Until then, the Government should try to make an effort. We want some urgency and understanding, and we want them to realise that, ultimately, the national health service is our most precious public resource. In 1952, Aneurin Bevan said:
  "What emerges in the final count is the massive contribution that the national health service makes to the equipment of a civilised society. It has now become part of the texture of our national life. No political party would survive that tried to destroy it."
  We do not want the Tory party to survive, but the health service will certainly be safe in our hands.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): The only interesting discovery to emerge from the contribution of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is that he reads party conference speeches after they have been delivered and analyses them. The only problem was that he had not read the Leader of the Opposition's party conference speech and could not even say how much he had addressed the subject of health, so it was not a compelling contribution.
  I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken in and remained throughout the debate. Opposition Members pushed off following the solidarity photo opportunity, which was probably orchestrated by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who pulls the puppets' strings from time to time. According to the Order Paper, this was an Opposition day, but on the Floor of the House it was an Opposition away day. If anyone in the House showed an interest in the health service, it was my right hon. and hon. Friends, who made excellent contributions to the debate.
  As usual, the Labour party has alleged crisis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the pressures on the system, which I acknowledge. The hon. Member for Fife, Central suggested that Conservative Members had tried to say that there were no problems in the health service. We do not say that. We acknowledge the fact that pressures exist and that steps have been put in hand to

  445
  deal with them. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those health service staff who do so well in difficult times to deliver service to the public. It can do them no good to hear Labour Members denigrate time and again the service that they deliver, basing their arguments on partial facts rather than the full story of what is happening. If anyone should be upset about the tale delivered by the Labour party, it is not the Conservative party but those who serve within the health service.
  There is no doubt about the challenge that faces us, and a number of hon. Members dealt with it. I shall respond to the detail of the debate briefly because of the lack of time available to me.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) always makes an important contribution. He was on all fours with us about the difficulties of meeting the challenges of modern medicine and he referred to a number of matters on which we could agree. He mentioned emergency admissions and scoffed when I suggested that there was some doubt about why they were rising. Our research on whether premature discharges have caused the increase in emergency admissions comes from Scotland and shows that they are not necessarily a pressure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made yet another powerful Back-Bench contribution on behalf of his constituency, and he illustrated clearly the two sides of the coin. Opposition Members tried to say that the service was in crisis, but my right hon. Friend pointed quite properly to what was happening in Good Hope hospital in his constituency. He reminded the House about proper management arrangements, the need for which was rooted in the failure of the service in 1980s. The matter was addressed by my right hon. Friend, and the health service needs proper management.
  Mr. McLeish: What about nursing?
  Mr. Malone: I shall be pleased to refer to nursing in a minute. Proper management is right for the health service, and cutting away bureaucracy and cutting management—the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—are also right. The two are quite compatible. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talked about the structure of the health service, and about defining the boundaries of clinical effectiveness. I agreed with him on that, but he went on to say we that we should have local government participation.
  I read with some interest a famous Liberal Democrat document, "Towards 1996", which said:
  "Obviously this document will have a very limited circulation."
  I am not sure whether every one of my hon. Friends now has a copy of this document, but probably most do. The document referred to the work done by somebody called the Liberal Democrat party's political warfare officer—whoever that might be. The document dealt with health in some detail, and listed the Liberal Democrats' strengths and weaknesses on the issue. It managed to find one strength and four weaknesses, one of which was the policy enunciated by the hon. Gentleman, who talked of having councillors in control of health authorities. The document said:
  "Lib-Dem policy of putting councillors in control of LHAs is a barmy idea."
  446
  The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen to his advisers on that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, made a powerful and thoughtful speech in which she set out an important future agenda for the Committee, with which we will work with great interest. The Government are keen to respond to the work of the Select Committee—as my hon. Friend pointed out—and we have just submitted an important memorandum on the subject of long-term care. I know that the Committee will consider that with great interest.
  The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) came out with the real tactic of the Opposition, which was to have a saga of cases to which Ministers might have been able to respond had they been given some notice. I say that because I made an offer to another hon. Member—he is not in his place—at our previous debate on the matter to investigate every single case that he raised. I must say that he was deficient in the facts when we looked at the cases. I make the same offer to the hon. Member for Bootle—I shall look at each of the cases that he raised and respond to him in detail.
  The Government suggest that people go to the point of first resort, which is the trust. But if there is dissatisfaction, Ministers are happy to look at the case and take up matters on behalf of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned specifically a reduction in beds, and the loss of a 59-bed unit at Walton hospital. There is to be a new bed block in an associated hospital, but the hon. Gentleman may be disappointed to hear—as it rather destroys his point—that it will contain not 59 but 72 beds.
  The imbalance in the debate was that, although we heard tales such as that told by the hon. Member for Bootle, Opposition Members positively refused to talk about what was happening. The hon. Gentleman referred to Fazakerley hospital, but I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman—as an hon. Member who represents his constituents' interests—failed to mention the investment of £1 million in accident and emergency services in 1994–95. Although he illustrated his point with three cases, he failed to point out that 95 per cent. of patients are now admitted within one hour of the decision to admit. It would be helpful if he looked at the facts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) paid tribute to what the NHS is achieving, but she raised concerns about mixed wards. We share those concerns, and we need to make progress towards eliminating such wards. She also suggested that NHS staff ought to have care when referring to patients by their Christian name, as that might be insulting. All I can say is that any staff member who referred to my hon. Friend as "Jill" should she ever be in hospital will probably get a thick ear. It is certainly not something that I would try.
  I was pleased that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) acknowledged that there had been improvements in the service. He dealt specifically with nursing, to which I promised the hon. Member for Fife, Central I would return. I find fault with the Labour party because it always refuses to tell the full case. If one looks at the figures and notes that learners and Project 2000 students are now treated in a different way, and includes general medical services practice nurses, whom the

  447
  Labour party always seems on purpose to exclude, one sees that there has been a 1.6 per cent. increase in qualified and unqualified nursing and midwifery staff between 1989 and 1994. The full picture shows a different story.
  Mr. McLeish: There are not enough.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is not enough, but that is not the point. His hon. Friends have said that nursing numbers have decreased, but that is simply not true.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister confirm that if one takes Project 2000 nurses and adds them to the learners who are still within the NHS, there are, based on the Minister's figures, 19,000 fewer nurses in training now than in the past?
  Mr. Malone: The numbers of nurses in training at any given time, as of doctors and any other medical staff, are those sufficient to man the service. The hon. Gentleman forgets that when his party handed the health service to the Government, people were leaving it in droves. The NHS was not retaining its staff. More nurses are now being retained than in the past, and that explains why the figure is different.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) challenged the Labour party to say what management levels are right. We did not hear anything about that from the Labour party. Judging from what the Opposition have said, however, one would expect them to say that no management was appropriate. That, of course, is absolute nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) spoke about the plans for her hospital. The plans to which she referred were based on the recommendations of a working party composed of health care professionals and consultants. They have been discussed with the community health council and the staff. I am sad to say that the chief executive of the hospital has been trying, I understand unsuccessfully, to discuss the plans with the hon. Lady. Perhaps I will write to him tomorrow to tell him of the concerns that the hon. Lady has expressed in the House, and perhaps a meeting can now take place to illustrate what is going on.
  Various other speakers contributed to the debate, and I would like to refer specifically to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who said that he was fed up with statistics. Too many statistics mask a story. What tell a false story are partial statistics, which the Labour party cites. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that they do not like statistics, but the truth of the matter is that the facts do not suit them. That is the problem with the health service—more people are being treated more effectively and there are more satisfied customers than ever before. The hon. Gentleman asked for more resources. I ask him to put that question to his hon. Friends on the Front Bench. The Government have been committed to putting more resources into the health service year on year, but it is his party that is silent on that.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) paid tribute to what has happened to the health service in his constituency. He is quite right to
  448
  point out that it is a great achievement that day surgery is at record levels at his local trust hospital. That improvement is one reason why we have been able to make such progress.
  I apologise to other hon. Members to whom I have not been able to respond directly, but my time is limited.
  This has been an interesting debate in which the Labour party has not dealt with the current issues in the health service. We heard nothing from the Opposition about the primary care-led NHS and where it is going. They said nothing about how that service will shape the health service for the 21st century. Not a word did we hear.
  We heard a mealy-mouthed answer to the question of fundholding. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) will have to answer to a number of fundholding practices in her constituency, including Dr. Virji and partners, who offer clinical psychology, minor surgery and other services; Dr. Brownsdon and partners, one mile north of Herne Hill, who offer excellent services; and Doctor Hossain and partners, who provide outreach teaching clinics for dermatology and in-surgery clinics for antenatal treatment, asthma and hypertension. Those are the benefits that her party is, at bottom, committed to sweeping away. She is fudging the issue and refuses to tell the story.
  Yesterday, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he was not buckling under pressure. The whole country could see that he was twisting. His party has been twisting on the health service today. Policy by staccato soundbite will not do. From what we have heard today, the hon. Member for Peckham is more credible when she acts on education than when she speaks on health.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 285.

  Division No. 35]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Byers, Stephen

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Caborn, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashton, Joe

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chidgey, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Battle, John

  Church, Judith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coffey, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cohen, Harry

  Benton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Corbett, Robin

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Keith

  Corston, Jean

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

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

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Burden, Richard

  Dafis, Cynog

  449

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

  Denham, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dowd, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fatchett, Derek

  McFall, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGrady, Eddie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maginnis, Ken

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Mandelson, Peter

  Garrett, John

  Marek, Dr John

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Mudie, George

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoey, Kate

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  450

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salmond, Alex

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Short, Clare

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Simpson, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watson, Mike

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Straw, Jack

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Churchill, Mr

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Colvin, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Congdon, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Forest)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davies, David (Boothferry)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Body, Sir Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowis, John

  Dunn, Bob

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brazier, Julian

  Elletson, Harold

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butterfill, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forth, Eric

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  451

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mans, Keith

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  452

  Sumberg, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waller, Gary

  Sykes, John

  Ward, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Walden George

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the NHS is a great British success story which delivers health care of international quality, which is and will remain available free at the point of use on the basis of medical need and provides excellent value for money for taxpayers; congratulates all NHS staff for their hard work and dedication, particularly during the exceptional period of increased demand for NHS services over recent weeks; welcomes the increasing number of qualified nurses and midwives over the last seventeen years and looks forward to the NHS continuing to flourish under the policies of a Government which has backed its commitment to the service with year-on-year increases in real resources.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    MARINE POLLUTION
    That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.

    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    That the draft International Sea-Bed Authority (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
    That the draft International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]
    Question agreed to.

  Saudi Arabia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: I hope that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), will accept that I mean him no disrespect when I say that he should not be here this evening. Given the great interest among the British people and internationally about the subject of Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia, and given the intense controversy surrounding the Government's plan to deport the leader of the Saudi opposition, the Foreign Secretary himself should have come to the Chamber tonight to defend the Government's position. His absence is an act of cowardice, which is all the more shameful in view of the important role that he played—as we shall see in a moment—in the plot that was hatched many months ago to rid the Saudi tyrants of this turbulent Muslim priest.
  As the organiser of the "Masari must stay" campaign, I want to deal with the professor's deportation, but only inasmuch as his case crystallises the corrupt and infectious nature of our relationship with that medieval, absolutist royal dictatorship. It is my contention that our unhealthy obsession with, and increasing dependence upon, the single-family rulers of Saudi Arabia is demeaning to us as a country, is diminishing to us as a democracy and is potentially disastrous for us as a trading and manufacturing economy.
  We have reached a nadir in the Government's brazen and almost certainly unlawful decision to deport a peaceful law-abiding refugee and probably send him to his death in Dominica. However, the illness of which I speak is of far longer standing. It reaches to the commanding heights of the military industrial complex, into the inner sanctum of the Cabinet and even into the family home of a former Prime Minister of this country, Baroness Thatcher.
  The infamous Vickers memorandum, which was revealed by The Guardian on 6 January, establishes the nexus as clearly as the most fantastic conspiracy theorist could have dreamt. In the memorandum, two captains of industry—Dick Evans, chief executive of British Aerospace, and Sir Colin Chandler, chief executive of Vickers, who was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen—reveal the complex web that has been woven.
  That web encompasses the British arms industry, the Government and Foreign Office grandees such as Andrew Green—who was revealed by The Independent newspaper to have been at one and the same time the head of the middle east desk at the Foreign Office, ambassador designate to Saudi Arabia and a director of Vickers, a private arms company. It involves the British security services and a brutal foreign autocracy. It is the last absolute monarchy in the world, surviving 350 years after the death of the last such monarch in this country, who was executed not a quarter of a mile from here under the authority of the House.
  The purpose of the web was to conspire to sell more and more guns to that dictatorship not for jobs, but for private profit, and to conspire with its customer to silence or to "stifle personally"—in the chilling words of the
  454
  memorandum—any opposition to the conspiracy, however peaceful, representative or democratic. No other construction is possible than that the memorandum was referring to, at best, the kidnapping or more likely the assassination of the Saudi opposition leader.
  Last August, in an interview given at his request to the Saudi-controlled newspaper Al-Hayat, the Foreign Secretary carefully laid the ground for the conspiracy. Breaking all protocol in his desperation to appease the Saudi potentates, the Foreign Secretary singled out Professor al-Masari—then an applicant for political asylum—for savage personal attack. He said that the professor represented nothing, but by what process the Foreign Secretary discovered that is unclear, as there are no elections of any kind in Saudi Arabia and no such thing as opinion polls. In any case, the Foreign Secretary has never been known for his special insight into, or interest in, the Arab world.
  The Foreign Secretary contradicted his point by raising and repeatedly returning to the al-Masari case, showing an unhealthy obsession with it. In that interview, the British position began to change. Previously, the stated position was:
  "We can only take action against deeds, not words."
  Thereafter, the position was, "Never mind the law. Never mind our international obligations. This man's faxes and e-mail are dangerous to the continued survival of the rich milch cow that is Saudi Arabia under the dictatorship. He must, one way or another, be stifled personally."
  The wave of revulsion that followed the al-Masari deportation order signed on 3 January was considerable. It can be charted in newspaper editorials across the political spectrum, correspondence columns and the torrent of parliamentary questions and motions, and in the huge number of people of all political colours who are united in the campaign against Professor al-Masari's deportation.
  I visited Saudi Arabia in 1989 as part of a group of parliamentarians—all specialists in the middle east—under the able leadership of Lord Pym. That visit took place in the wake of a squall in British-Saudi relations, after the publication of a private memorandum by Sir James Craig—the recently retired British ambassador to the kingdom. Although years had passed, the regime was still smarting from the British television documentary, "Death of a Princess".
  At every meeting at the highest levels, our delegation was regaled with complaints by the Saudis about the licence, as they saw it, of the British press. With great skill and incomparable charm, Lord Pym painstakingly described the nature of press freedom in Britain, humorously explaining that politicians were frequently on the receiving end of that freedom but that there was nothing we could do about it.
  Late one night, I spoke to Lord Pym about the pressure to which the Saudis were subjecting him. Taking a long sip of water, as was his wont, Lord Pym said something that I have never forgotten: "You see, my boy, we are here to soft-soap really—but we can never, never apologise." What a distance we have travelled since then, under the corrosive influence of the Saudi embrace.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) declares a remunerated directorship of Hawk Communications International Ltd.—

  455
  "a communications company…to assist democratic development in the Middle East".
  I am seeking to establish whether the hon. Gentleman has an interest to declare in relation to Saudi Arabia.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It is not for the Chair to find out such things. If the hon. Member concerned feels that he has an interest to declare, he should declare it.
  Mr. Galloway: If I had an interest to declare, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have declared it. All the interests in Saudi Arabia sit on Conservative Benches—as is clear from the catcalling even from the Treasury Bench. I have no interest to declare except in democratic reform in Arabia and in the overthrow of the absolutist monarchy in that country. I resent the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  In Lord Pym's words, "We are here to soft-soap really—but we can never, never apologise." What a distance we have travelled since then, under the corrosive influence of the Saudi embrace. Let us walk down the road that we have travelled and see what landmarks paved the way to that sorry pass. The most corrupting turn was when we opened the door to the Aladdin's cave of the Al Yamamah arms deal and gorged ourselves in a trough of larceny and backhanders. We have to face the fact as a country that that contract was landed by British Aerospace as a result of corruption on an unprecedented scale.
  Enormous bribes—[Interruption.] Interestingly, someone on the Treasury Bench has just said "Hear, hear."
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I said, "Hear, hear."
  Mr. Galloway: Enormous bribes and commissions of up to 30 per cent. of the multi-billion pound deal were paid. They were shared between the Defence Minister, Prince Sultan and his family, and the sons of King Fand, notably Prince Mohammed, about whom I will say more later. If we are talking about declarations of interest, a whole gang of middlemen was involved in London in that affair and made millions of pounds in pay-offs.
  Those middlemen included Wafic Said, who became a business partner of the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) and a close friend of, and generous benefactor to, the Conservative party. They included Mark Thatcher, the son of the then Prime Minister, who gave 10 Downing street as his address at the time, but who was later given his own house and other lavish benefits by Wafic Said and who has become mysteriously and inordinately rich.
  Among those who shared the millions of pounds sucked from those commissions was the former Cabinet Minister and former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for South Thanet. Some of those secret commissions on the Al Yamamah deal have been handled by British Aerospace through a British business man, Douglas Leese, who has close connections with an offshore bank, the Bank of NT Butterfield in Bermuda.
  As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a report by Sir John Bourn of the National Audit Office, which reveals some of those commissions, has been suppressed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts for more than three years. Public opinion is increasingly asking why.
  456
  Another part of the deal was concluded in 1988, when the regime agreed to buy minesweepers from Vosper Thorneycroft. Vosper used as its agent a Saudi named Fahd al-Athel, who, like the right hon. Member for South Thanet, worked for Prince Mohammed. Vosper made huge payments to al-Athel's company, which were laundered with the knowledge of Vosper through a front company in Saudi Arabia and were divided 20 per cent. to al-Athel, 40 per cent. to Prince Mohammed and 40 per cent. to unnamed others, some of them known to be prominent figures in British life.
  In a third part of the Al Yamamah deal, Colonel Thomas Dooley, an executive of Sikorsky, testified in a United States court that, while trying to sell Black Hawk helicopters to the Saudi regime, there took place what he described in his testimony as a "competition for bribes". He said that Prince Bandar told him what bribes must be paid for the deal, through which middleman they must be paid, and how he would distribute the money to other members of the royal family.
  In a fourth part of the Al Yamamah deal, the right hon. Member for South Thanet was hired personally by a British arms company—Astra—which hoped to land a contract to fit guns to those helicopters. The right hon. Member has acknowledged that he was paid to introduce his business partner, the aforementioned Fahd al-Athel, to Astra, which was also paying him, as a commission agent.
  The bribes and commissions linked to those deals extended to every subcontract. Last year, Thorn EMI admitted that it had paid bribes totalling 26 per cent., which were illegal even by Saudi law by a factor of five, on the sale of smart fuses for the bombs carried by the Saudi Tornados. Half of those bribes paid off the Saudi princes and the other half went—via a small-scale arms dealer, Michael Gay, who, interestingly enough, is based near the British Aerospace headquarters outside Preston—to those mysterious bank accounts in the Bank of NT Butterfield in Bermuda. There, like other things that venture into the Bermuda triangle, they promptly disappeared.
  The British Government insist that they are expelling al-Masari because of their new-found concern for British industrial jobs. In fact, it is British Conservative politicians, their relatives and business associates, and the revolving-door arms barons-cum Whitehall mandarins who are milking the Saudi cash cow. As the newly elected president of the engineering union, Davey Hall, a man who has represented Vickers workers in the north-east for so many years, has pointed out, a future based on pandering to unstable and unrepresentative middle eastern dictators can never guarantee a secure future for British defence exporters.
  In fact, Vickers is a case in point. An order for the very same Challenger tanks for which Sir Colin Chandler is prepared to sacrifice human rights, to sell them to bloated Saudi princes, was one of the first contracts to be cancelled after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran—a decision that came about precisely because of the craven support, until the last hours, of successive British Governments for the despot in Iran. It is by investment in high-tech performance that British manufacturing will sell around the world, not by giving baksheesh to Saudi princes whose days are, in any case, numbered.
  The contagion of corruption is not confined to business or to Government. The television film "Death of a Princess" is now under lock and key, and all requests for

  457
  footage from it are routinely denied. Its producer has taken an inexplicable vow of silence, and will make no comment about the film to anyone.
  Nothing, however, could be more humiliating for the world's pre-eminent broadcasting organisation, the BBC, than to have had its editorial integrity prostituted by its reckless commercial involvement with the Saudi royal family. In the wake of the deportation order against al-Masari, all reports of the case on the BBC's Arabic World Service Television were censored by the corporation's partner, the Saudi-owned Orbit Communications, based in Rome. The BBC has still been unable to restore its once incomparable reputation throughout the middle east, despite intensive negotiations with Orbit, and the Secretary of State for National Heritage has still not explained the circumstances of this censorship to the House.
  Who could have predicted that the country which made "Death of a Princess" would itself fall victim to the Saudi virus which has strangled the fragile flower of press freedom throughout the middle east by corruption and larceny?
  It is the Government's case that Britain's strategic and economic interests are bound up with the propping up of what, by anyone's standards, is a rotten and crumbling dictatorship. It is our contention that only by befriending the people of Arabia and extending help to those working for freedom, human rights and democracy in Arabia can we guarantee our long-term future. At the moment, we are guaranteeing the enduring enmity of those people by propping up the people who oppress them. That is why the British people have risen against this decision—and why the British courts will overturn it.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has given us the opportunity to debate Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia, and I welcome that—although it will come as no surprise to him to learn that I do not agree with most, if any, of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman says that it is a disgrace that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not here. That is absolute rubbish. Can he give me a precedent of a Cabinet Minister taking an Adjournment debate, particularly since I am the Minister responsible for our relations with Saudi Arabia?
  Mr. Galloway rose—
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman did not allow any interventions—
  Mr. Galloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister asked me a question.
  Mr. Hanley: No, the hon. Member may not answer.
  Mr. Galloway: Douglas Hurd answered my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the subject of Lockerbie just a few months ago.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I deprecate this kind of behaviour. It is very important that the courtesies be observed. Mr. Hanley.
  Mr. Hanley: If there is a—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary did answer me on Lockerbie, as a matter of fact.
  Mr. Hanley: I find very few precedents for the fact that not one Labour Front Bencher is present for the debate on a matter as important as this. Indeed, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not come in until some 15 minutes after the hon. Member for Hillhead had started his speech. I believe that the presence of so many Ministers on the Government Bench shows how importantly we take our relations with Saudi Arabia.
  The United Kingdom has a long-standing and close relationship with Saudi Arabia, based on mutual respect and shared interests. Not only is Saudi Arabia a country of great strategic, economic and commercial importance to us, but there are many ties of history and friendship between Britain and that kingdom, including well-developed cultural, educational and sporting exchanges.
  Britain's links with that country date back to the founding of the modern state of Saudi Arabia in the 1920s and 1930s. Britain never acted as protector of the kingdom, as it did with some of the smaller Gulf states. Instead, the relationship has always been one between two independent sovereign states. Britain recognised the important strategic role that Saudi Arabia was likely to play in the post-war world when Winston Churchill met King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, on the Suez canal in February 1945. Since then, successive British Governments, with our allies in America and Europe, have sought to ensure that Saudi Arabia remains a force for stability in the region.
  Our bilateral trading relations are extensive. In 1994, visible exports to the kingdom amounted to more than £1.5 billion—a trading surplus of around £800 million. The figures for 1995 are likely to he even better. There is a major invisible account with numerous British financial institutions and companies investing in Saudi Arabia to the tune of £1 billion or more annually, and Saudi Arabians are investing in the City of London. With the exceptions of Hong Kong and Singapore, Saudi Arabia is our largest export market outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. There are more than 100 Saudi-British joint ventures currently under negotiation, ranging from construction to pharmaceuticals.
  Saudi. Arabia is also our biggest defence sales market in the world. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Chamber. The sale of military equipment, and the provision of military advice and support is, without doubt, a vital strand in our relationship. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the Al Yamamah project, which accounts for tens of thousands of jobs in the defence and defence-related sector and contributes to the overall health of our aerospace industry. That may not be important to the hon. Member for Hillhead, but it is important to many thousands of industrial workers throughout the United Kingdom.
  Saudi Arabia is not just a trading partner, but a country whose foreign policy has shared similar objectives to our own. Whether in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the Organisation of Islamic States or other organisations or groupings of which it is a member, Saudi Arabia has played a crucial role in the promotion of

  459
  moderate and sensible policies. During the cold war, Saudi Arabia, while at all times remaining staunchly independent, was a vehement opponent of communism and the spread of Soviet influence throughout the region.
  Saudi Arabia has been in the forefront of efforts to establish credible regional security blocs. In 1981, it helped to create the Gulf Co-operation Council which, although not perfect, has none the less proved to be a workable model for developing regional co-operation. There is a growing relationship between the GCC and the European Union and the next in a series of ministerial level meetings will take place in April.
  We share with Saudi Arabia a particular concern for the continued stability of the Gulf, to which we make a substantial contribution on the ground and at the United Nations. We stood shoulder to shoulder with Saudi Arabia in the Gulf war in 1991, with the largest deployment of British armed forces since the second world war, and we are ready to do the same again if necessary. As the leading member of the GCC and our major Gulf ally, Saudi Arabia played a vital role in the coalition against Iraq, helping to defeat the expansionist ambitions of Saddam Hussein—I think that we know the hon. Gentleman's views on that subject—and has since been steadfast in support of all UN resolutions designed to force Iraq to adhere to internationally acceptable standards of behaviour.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hanley: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not give way as I have a lot to say and very little time.
  Saudi Arabia remains an important bulwark against any further Iraqi attempts to threaten or invade its neighbours. The Saudis share our suspicions of Iranian policies in the region and they share our support for the middle east peace process. Saudi Arabia has been a bastion of stability and moderation in a region not always known for those qualities.
  Our warm friendship with Saudi Arabia is reflected in a number of ways, which perhaps I can illustrate. There are close relations between the two royal families. Hundreds of thousands of Saudi Arabians visit Britain every year on holiday. Many have homes here and look upon Britain as their second home. They are important contributors to the British economy. So, too, are the nearly 30,000 Britons who work in Saudi Arabia. Many official visits have taken place between the two countries.
  Saudi Arabia has enjoyed an impressive rate of economic growth and stability. It is important for the economic well-being not only of Britain, but of the whole industrialised world, to ensure ready access to middle eastern oil at an economic price. Saudi Arabia, the leading member of OPEC, has by far the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world. Saudi Arabia is therefore a key element in that equation. Her policy of sustaining a moderate and stable oil price has benefited Britain enormously.
  As our Prime Minister recently emphasised, the continued stability and security of Saudi Arabia are vital to the health of the global economy, to the prosperity of British industry and to the preservation of so many jobs in this country.
  460
  The hon. Gentleman, as he has made clear on many occasions inside and outside the House, is a fervent supporter of the beliefs of Dr. al-Masari. Dr. al-Masari has launched a vituperative campaign from London aimed at the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian regime. He has at times appeared to condone violence. He has abused our hospitality.
  The hon. Gentleman sees Dr. al-Masari as a western-style liberal. That is clearly not the case, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Dr. al-Masari's organisation—the Committee for the Defence of Sharia Law—indicates that he would insist on an even stricter application of Islamic law than that followed by the Saudi Government, who themselves adhere to a strict interpretation of Islam. In recent newspaper interviews, Dr. al-Masari has clearly stated his support for an Islamic republic in which only Islamic political parties committed to ruling the country strictly by Koranic law would be able to stand for election.
  Mr. Galloway: How many parties, Islamic or otherwise, are allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia now? And how many elections, of any kind, for anything, are allowed now?
  Mr. Hanley: I am not in any way trying to say that Dr. al-Masari's views are different from many in Saudi Arabia. What I am trying to say is that Dr. al-Masari is not the liberal saint that the hon. Gentleman likes to suggest.
  Not only would Dr. al-Masari ban any party other than those which are strictly bound by Koranic law, but his prescription is for a Saudi Government on the Iranian model. He has also been quoted as following strict anti-blasphemy laws, as wanting women to stay at home and claiming that women sin if they do not submit to sex with their husbands at any time and in any manner, and as favouring stricter applications of the punishments of execution by beheading for criminals and amputations for theft. That does not make him a western-style liberal in my book.
  Mr. Galloway: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hanley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to articles in the press setting out Dr. al-Masari's views.
  The United Kingdom takes seriously its obligation to protect those who seek asylum, but asylum seekers cannot pick and choose which countries suit them best. Against that background, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has directed that Dr al-Masari be removed to a country which is willing to receive. him and which is a party to the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 protocol. We believe that that decision, against which Dr. al-Masari has appealed, was made in accordance with our law and our international rights and obligations.
  The immigration rules provide that an asylum application may be refused without substantive consideration if there is clear evidence of admissibility to a safe third country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was satisfied, following receipt of a letter from the Prime Minister of Dominica, that not only would Dr. al-Masari be admitted there but he would be granted refugee status should he wish to apply.

  461
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that Dominica is a safe third country for the purposes of the refugee convention. Had he thought otherwise, the decision to remove Dr. al-Masari there would not have been taken. Dominica has an excellent human rights record, with freedom of speech and worship enshrined in the constitution.
  Dr. al-Masari's wish for protection under the convention does not entitle him to choose Britain. It is relevant in this context that he also had no ties with this country before entering illegally, and we have all seen how he has taken advantage of our communications network in order to campaign against the Saudi Government—a campaign which the hon. Member for Hillhead, by his own mouth this evening, supports.
  We have made no secret of the fact that the action taken in Dr. al-Masari's case took account of the United Kingdom's strategic and economic interest in the stability of Saudi Arabia. On being satisfied that Dr. al-Masari was not at risk of persecution in Dominica, or of removal from there to a country in which he might fear persecution, it
  462
  was entirely consistent with the 1951 refugee convention to give wide consideration to the United Kingdom's overall interests.
  We believe that a regular dialogue on human rights is the most appropriate and effective way to address this issue. As for human rights, we and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudis. In September, for instance, the European Union made a demarche to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Riyadh expressing concern at the increasing number of executions taking place in Saudi Arabia. In early December, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the European Union pointed out, in a reference to Saudi Arabia, the existence of serious obstacles to the enjoyment of human rights and freedom of religion and expression—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims Limit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice he received on his proposal to raise the small claims limit in housing cases other than possession proceedings from £1,000 to £3,000 for representatives of consumers and the legal profession. [10261]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor received responses from representatives of housing advice groups, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Centres Federation and Shelter, from consumer groups such as the National Consumer Council, from the legal professions, including the Law Society and the Housing Law Practitioners' Association, and from members of the judiciary.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants (Opposition Contacts)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has now authorised confidential pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and Opposition spokesmen. [12001]

  The Prime Minister
  The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has now asked me to authorise the conventional pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and Opposition spokesmen and I have done so. The purpose of these contacts is to allow Opposition spokesmen to inform themselves of factual questions of departmental organisation and to inform senior civil servants of any organisational changes stemming from Opposition policies in the event of a change of Government. Such meetings are confidential on both sides.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs; [10977]
  226
  (2) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private fiance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10976]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies; and if he will make a statement. [9148]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the chief executives of the National Resources Institute and Wilton Park executive agencies to reply to the hon. Member's question.

  Letter from Richard Latter to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  Wilton Park arranges its pre-retirement courses for staff utilising the good offices of the FCO Training Department.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 January 1996:
  In your question addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs you asked what action the heads of his executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses. It has been agreed that I should provide this information in respect of NRI.
  Pre-retirement seminars organised by ODA are offered to NRI staff nearing retirement age. Provision of courses or seminars by a third party (as is presently being done for staff leaving NRI under a current severance/early retirement programme) would be arranged if ODA facilities were not available.

  Chernobyl Explosion (Compensation)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made to the Governments of the former Soviet Union, under the principles of the polluter pays, to seek compensation for the effects in the United Kingdom of the Chernobyl explosion. [11154]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Just after the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, on 10 July 1986, we notified the Soviet Union that we were reserving the right to file claims for damage which had occurred in the United Kingdom.

  However, we came to the conclusion that it was unrealistic to expect the Soviet Union to honour such claims.

  It was not possible to base a claim for compensation against the Soviet Union on relevant international conventions, in particular the 1968 Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage, as it was not a party to

  227
  these conventions. The Soviet Union now no longer exists. The Russian Federation and Ukraine are considering accession to the 1968 Vienna convention. However, any such accession would not have retrospective effect.

  We are participating in the work in progress internationally to achieve an enhanced global regime for nuclear liability. We expect that this issue will be discussed during the G7/G8 nuclear safety summit in Moscow in April.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Pakistan in respect of the abuse of human rights in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [10358]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly raise our concerns about humans rights issues with the Government of Pakistan and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been killed in Karachi and Sindh in Pakistan in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [10360]

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures we have from the Pakistani authorities for people killed in the last two years are:

  1994

  1995

  Sindh (including Karachi)

  2,112

  2,823

  Karachi

  919

  1,847

  We have consistently stressed the importance of respect for human rights and have urged all parties to refrain from violence and to negotiate a sustainable political settlement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent arrest by the Pakistan security forces of the secretary-general of Human Rights International. [10361]

  Mr. Hanley
  Dr. Halepota, the secretary-general of Human Rights International, who is a dual British-Pakistani national, was detained by the Pakistani police on 28 November 1995. Under international law, we are not entitled to afford protection to a dual national in the country of his or her second nationality. However, on humanitarian grounds our high commission made informal representations to the Pakistani authorities. Dr. Halepota was deported to the UK on 5 January.

TREASURY

  Tax Returns
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and proportion of taxpayers aged 65 years or over who complete tax returns. [7648]
  228
  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that in 1995–96 there will be around 10 million people aged 65 or over, about 3 million of whom will pay income tax. It is estimated that around 750,000 or 7.5 per cent. of the total will complete tax returns.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has undertaken with the Plain English Society on the self-assessment tax forms currently being proposed; what has been the response; and if he will place a copy of all correspondence in the Library. [8319]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue has won several plain English awards for its forms over the years and has been in correspondence with the Plain English Campaign about obtaining a crystal mark accreditation for the new self-assessment tax return. It continues to consult extensively with prospective users about the wording of the return and has invited PEC to contribute to that consultative process.

  It would not be appropriate for me to place copies of the correspondence on this in the House Library without the consent of the parties to it.

  Incomes (Budget Effects)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) single persons, (b) married couples and (c) married couples with two children he estimates will benefit by £9 per week net following his Budget; and what considerations underlay his estimate that taxpayers would benefit by this sum. [9779]

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget statement, a married couple with two children and one earner on average earnings gain around £190 per year from the Budget tax changes, including the effect of changes to indirect tax. Taking higher earnings into account, the same family should be around £450 per year better off next year, after tax and inflation.

  Sunday Trading
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total value of receipts from sales generated through Sunday trading(a) to retailers and (b) to the Treasury; and if he will make a statement. [10431]

  Mr. Jack
  No such estimates have been made. It would be extremely difficult to isolate the effects of Sunday trading from the many other factors that influence retail sales and tax revenues. However, it is clear that many people have welcomed the opportunity to shop on Sunday, and that retailers judge it worth their while to trade on Sundays.

  Disabled People (VAT)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the Customs and Excise head office directive on the charging of VAT on computers and printers supplied to registered disabled people. [10918]
  229
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the Customs notice, "VAT reliefs for people with disabilities," which is freely available in local VAT offices. Customs head office has not issued any general directive on the liability of computers and printers for disabled people.

  Taxpayers (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number and percentage of standard rate and higher rate taxpayers in(a) Lancashire and (b) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which figures are available. [10872]

  Mr. Amory
  The table provides estimates for 1993–94, the latest year for which information can be provided:

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers 1993–94

  Taxpayers liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayer liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Lancashire

  413

  73.0

  25

  4.5

  United Kingdom2

  18,090

  72.3

  1,740

  7.0

  1 Of total number of taxpayers, including those liable only to the lower rate of tax.

  2 Includes members of HM forces, the Merchant Navy, civil servants serving overseas and non-residents liable to UK tax who cannot be allocated to regions.

  Income Tax (Relief and Allowances)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers there are with income tax reliefs and allowances in excess of(a) £7,000, (b) £8,000, (c) £9,000, (d) £10,000, (e) £11,000 and (f) £12,000 (i) including and (ii) excluding profit-related pay. [11191]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information was given in my reply to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 83.

  Tax Yields
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of taxation taken as(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) capital gains tax, (d) VAT and (e) other taxes in 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1995–96. [11125]

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives the requested figures. The figures for 1995–96 are Budget forecasts.

  Income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT and other taxes as a percentage of total taxes and NICs1

  Year

  Income tax

  Corporation tax

  Capital gains tax

  VAT

  Other taxes2

  1979–80

  28¾

  6¾

  ½

  1l¾

  52¼

  1985–86

  24¼

  7

  ½

  13¼

  54¾

  1995–96

  27

  9¾

  ¼

  16¼

  45½

  1 Total taxes and NICS includes council tax for 1995–96 for consistency with earlier years.

  2 Other taxes include excise duties, stamp duty, council tax and NICs. Totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10073]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]The Treasury's policy continues to be not to gold plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10061]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  National Helpline
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the national Customs, Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency helpline will be launched; when and where he made announcements about the launch; what will be the start-up costs and running costs; if all the required new technology needed is in place; and what pilot studies have been undertaken indicating(a) the period covered, (b) the cost, (c) the numbers using the helpline and (d) if his Department has evaluated the results. [10535]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]Our proposals for a national telephone helpline to give advice to employers on PAYE and national insurance contributions issues and to VAT traders were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister at a press conference on 19 September. The conference was held in response to the first report of the deregulation task force, chaired by the right hon. Francis Maude, and coincided with a joint press release from the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the Department of Social Security and the Contributions Agency which gave more detail on the helpline. This confirmed that a helpline would be piloted in Scotland from October 1995, with the aim of extending it to cover the whole country in October 1996. A press conference hosted by officials from Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the CA was also held in Glasgow on the same day to give more details on the pilot.

  The pilot has been running successfully since 2 October and is being closely monitored by all three Departments. The helpline has attracted more than 12,500 calls; the final cost of the pilot will be dependent on the volume of calls received over the year. The final scope and design of the national helpline is not yet settled; decisions will be made in the light of the pilot which, as well as testing systems, is also taking soundings from businesses on how helpful they are finding the service. The final costs and technological requirements will depend on the design chosen.

  Environmental Appraisal
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money" were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [10608]

  (2) if the White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", produced by the Department of the Environment; and if he will publish the appraisal; [10607]

  (3) how the White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money" was modified by the results of the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [10609]

  (4) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money". [10610]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]The White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money", was not subject to an environmental appraisal. There are no plans to monitor the environmental impact.

  Duty-free Sales (Eurostar)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the legislative steps necessary to allow duty-free sales to Eurostar passengers at(a) Waterloo station, (b) Ashford station and (c) on board trains; and if he will make a statement. [11518]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]No. International convention precludes the sale of duty-free goods on international rail journeys both on trains and at stations. The United Kingdom, and our European Union partners, have accepted recommendations of the Customs Co-operation Council to that effect. There are, for example, no duty-free sales for trains travelling between Dublin and Belfast, or between Paris and Bonn.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Fatal Accident, Yorkshire
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the Crown Prosecution Service decision in respect of prosecution of the operator of the truck with defective brakes which killed six people at Sowerby bridge in Yorkshire. [11093]

  The Attorney-General
  On 1 December 1995, the divisional court refused an application for judicial review of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute any individual or company for manslaughter 232
  arising out of the accident at Sowerby bridge. In doing so, the court commented on the evidence. Once the transcript of the judgment is received a decision can be made on what further action, if any, should be taken.

  British Bus (Fraud Investigation)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if British Bus is the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation. [10936]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office is investigating possible offences relating to the conduct of certain directors of British Bus.

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received as to employment prospects in the construction industry in 1996. [10276]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I regularly meet senior representatives of the construction industry to discuss a range of issues including their concerns about workload and employment prospects. My Department prepares jointly with the industry a twice yearly "State of the Industry" report which is next due for publication on 29 February.

  Pollution (Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce pollution in the Greater Manchester area. [10301]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have put in place a number of mechanisms to control pollution which apply throughout the country. The Environment Act 1990 introduced two systems for controlling polluting emissions from industry: integrated pollution control, which limits emissions to all environmental media from large installations; and local authority air pollution control, covering emissions to air from small and medium enterprises. Both these systems apply best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, and authorisations are reviewed periodically. The main control on air pollution from domestic sources is the smoke control areas system, introduced in the Clean Air Act 1956. Emissions from the transport sector are mainly controlled through European Community legislation, and we shall be negotiating new vehicle emission and fuel quality standards for the year 2000 and beyond in the Council of Ministers this year.

  The Environment Act 1995 introduced a duty on local authorities to assess and review air quality in their areas, and to establish local air quality management areas where standards or objectives are being or arc likely to he breached. In such areas, authorities must draw up action plans to help bring ambient pollution down to acceptable levels. The Government are currently developing

  233
  guidance for local authorities to help them discharge those duties.

  As regards water quality, in 1994, for the north-west as a whole, 84 per cent. of river and canal length was classed as good or fair compared to 74 per cent. in 1990. More specifically, the Government have sponsored the Mersey basin campaign, a major initiative to clean up the rivers, canals and estuary of the Mersey basin. Increasingly stringent controls have been applied to both direct industrial and sewage discharges and the pollution load in rivers flowing into the estuary has been reduced by 80 per cent. over the last 25 years.

  House Building (Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the house building industry in the Greater Manchester area. [10300]

  Mr. Clappison
  The value of new orders for house building in the Greater Manchester area in 1994, the last complete year for which statistics are available, was £61 million local authority and housing association and £250 million private. This compares with £24 million and £100 million respectively in the first half of 1995.

  The value of new orders for private housing in Great Britain in the three months to November 1995 was 1 per cent. higher than in the previous quarter. The Government welcome this small improvement and continue to promote economic policies based on low inflation, sustainable growth and sound public finances which will encourage a return of consumer confidence and help ensure the long-term health of the housing market. The affordability of housing for purchase is excellent, with mortgage rates at their lowest for 30 years.

  Service Charges
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to monitor the value for money of service charges in the public and private sectors; and if he will make a statement. [10297]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have no plans to monitor the value for money of service charges in the private sector. We have, however, received many representations on the subject and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 18 January 1996,Official Report, column 668.

  The Department commissioned research into council leaseholders' service charges in 1994 and the findings have been published. This included information about the level of service charges and the attitude of leaseholders to them. We are considering further research.

  Metropolitan District Employees
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many full-time equivalent employees there are(a) in total and (b) per head of population in the service of each metropolitan district. [10430]
  234
  Mr. Curry
  The available information is as follows. The levels of employment in individual authorities are not directly comparable because of variations in, for example, population structure and social characteristics, the extent of the use of private firms and contractors and the level of work undertaken for other authorities and public bodies on an agency basis.

  Staff at June 1995

  Whole-time equivalents

  Staff per thousand population

  Barnsley

  8,056

  35.6

  Birmingham

  35,755

  35.5

  Bolton

  9,335

  35.2

  Bradford

  16,133

  33.5

  Bury

  5,097

  28.0

  Calderdale

  1—

  1—

  Coventry

  10,953

  36.2

  Doncaster

  9,753

  33.3

  Dudley

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  8,269

  40.9

  Kirklees

  12,530

  32.4

  Knowsley

  5,491

  35.7

  Leeds

  23,964

  33.1

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  Manchester

  20,726

  48.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  Oldham

  7,435

  33.7

  Rochdale

  7,010

  33.8

  Rotherham

  8,250

  32.2

  Salford

  9,210

  39.9

  Sandwell

  10,543

  35.9

  Sefton

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  17,169

  32.4

  Solihull

  5,536

  27.4

  South Tyneside

  5,828

  37.2

  St. Helens

  5,961

  32.9

  Stockport

  7,588

  26.0

  Sunderland

  11,010

  37.0

  Tameside

  6,963

  31.4

  Trafford

  5,753

  26.4

  Wakefield

  11,822

  37.3

  Walsall

  8,908

  33.8

  Wigan

  8,238

  26.6

  Wirral

  10,121

  30.4

  Wolverhampton

  9,206

  37.6

  1 Data not available.

  Source:

  Joint Staffing Watch, June 1995. Figures are for staff in general
  services—i.e. excluding law and order services.

  Aquifers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many aquifers currently supplying wholesome water have been sterilised following industrial or agricultural pollution or as a result of a traffic or railway accident in the last 30 years. [10633]

  Mr. Clappison:
  This information is not held centrally. However, relevant National Rivers Authority monitoring data are recorded on public registers in each of the authority's regions.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has recommended(a) Government Departments and (b) local authorities to carry out with organisations representing disabled people

  235
  regarding (i) the construction of access for disabled people to new buildings and (ii) making access easier for disabled people to older buildings. [10527]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Users and owners of buildings, including Government Departments, normally seek to make them accessible in accordance with recognised standards and guidelines, produced in consultation with organisations representing disabled people. Formal guidance is given in the approved document supporting part M of the Building Regulations 1991 and in the British Standards Institution's code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings, BS 5810, both of which were subject to consultation.

  Following Department of the Environment circular 10/82, general advice on access issues is also available from local authorities, many of whom have appointed access officers specifically for the purpose. They liaise with access groups representing local disabled people.

  Regulations and guidance on implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including access to existing buildings, will be subject to consultation with organisations representing disabled people by the Departments responsible for implementing the various parts of the Act.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the total value of negative equity in homes in(a) England and (b) the north-west in each year since 1992 at current prices. [10871]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of negative equity are sensitive to the underlying assumptions made, such as changes in house prices. Using the Department's house price index, adjusted for the mix of different dwelling types, it is estimated that the total value of negative equity in homes in(a) England and (b) the north-west in each year since 1992 at current (1995) prices is as follows:

  £ million

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a) England

  4,893

  5,230

  3,116

  (b) North-West

  2

  29

  5

  Estimates for 1995 are not yet available.

  These estimates provide only a very broad idea of the value of negative equity. The suitability of the assumptions used in compiling estimates of negative equity is currently under review.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households are currently in negative equity in each London borough. [10885]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of negative equity are not available for individual London boroughs.

  Housing Costs
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average household rent 236
  in (a) privately rented, (b) council and (c) housing association dwellings in each London borough. [10889]

  Mr. Clappison
  The average weekly local authority and housing association rents in London boroughs in March 1994, the latest date for which figures for individual London boroughs are available for both local authorities and housing associations, were as follows:

  £ per week

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Barking and Dagenham

  32.27

  53.47

  Barnet

  48.66

  42.34

  Bexley

  43.13

  44.60

  Brent

  50.18

  45.36

  Bromley

  40.47

  47.50

  Camden

  48.35

  46.48

  City of London

  46.57

  n/a

  Croydon

  50.94

  53.50

  Ealing

  63.90

  43.86

  Enfield

  46.75

  47.93

  Greenwich

  41.70

  44.08

  Hackney

  46.42

  40.87

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  46.70

  38.76

  Haringey

  52.49

  39.08

  Harrow

  56.88

  43.73

  Havering

  36.91

  42.67

  Hillingdon

  59.48

  44.57

  Hounslow

  37.59

  43.00

  Islington

  47.07

  42.39

  Kensington and Chelsea

  56.40

  37.49

  Kingston upon Thames

  60.27

  46.23

  Lambeth

  40.71

  37.39

  Lewisham

  41.35

  38.71

  Merton

  49.21

  47.80

  Newham

  37.00

  43.45

  Redbridge

  61.32

  45.56

  Richmond upon Thames

  48.24

  47.56

  Southwark

  44.36

  39.92

  Sutton

  42.28

  39.65

  Tower Hamlets

  35.78

  40.13

  Waltham Forest

  39.89

  43.28

  Wandsworth

  55.64

  44.69

  Westminster

  59.65

  42.18

  London

  45.65

  42.74

  The average rent figures are not directly comparable as they take no account of differences in the composition of stock, eg. size and type of dwellings, their age and condition.

  Source:

  Local authorities—housing subsidy claim forms.

  Housing associations—HAR 10/I (not grossed for missing data).

  Figure for average private sector rents are available only from sample surveys which are not large enough to produce reliable figures for individual local authorities. The average weekly private sector rent in London in 1993–94, from the survey of English housing was £89; this figure, which covers all types of tenancy, is subject to sampling variability.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the average mortgage level and (b) the number of households with mortgages in each London borough. [10887]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates from the survey of English housing indicate that in London as a whole the average mortgage payment was £330 a month in 1994–95 and that
  237
  just over 1 million households were buying with a mortgage. These estimates are subject to sampling variability. Estimates are not available for individual boroughs.

  Repossession
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many repossessions there were in each London borough in each year since 1992. [10886]

  Mr. Clappison
  Data are not held centrally on the number of repossessions in each London borough.

  Producer Responsibility Group on Packaging
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the current members of the producer responsibility group on packaging. [11180]

  Mr. Clappison
  The producer responsibility group presented its final report to Government in November 1994 and subsequently disbanded. At present, many businesses in the packaging industry are members of the Valpak working representative advisory committee—V-WRAG. Industry has also proposed that a committee be set up to advise the Secretary of State on the drafting and implementation of the regulations on producer responsibility for packaging, and on arrangements for carrying out review of the legal obligation. The Government intend to make an announcement on this shortly.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums remain to be distributed by the London residuary body to the London boroughs; and what residual rights and liabilities remain to be transferred. [10164]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]I understand that the London residuary body intends to distribute in early March some £6.2 million in revenue balances to the London boroughs and to the City of London. We are currently consulting the London boroughs on proposals to wind up the residuary body by 31 March 1996, to transfer responsibility for producing the LRB's final report and accounts to the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and to transfer all other remaining rights and liabilities to the London borough of Bromley as lead borough. Under these proposals, which would be effected by order, Bromley would be responsible for distributing among the London boroughs and the City any sums received by it as lead borough.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the emoluments paid to each board member of the London residuary body in the year 1995–96 to date; and what plans there are to scale them down. [10158]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]Between 1 April and 30 September 1995 the chairman of the London residuary body was paid £7,908 and the three other board members were each paid £4,775. The board was reappointed on 1 October and thereafter 238
  remuneration has been paid on the basis of one day a month at a rate of £370 per day for the chairman and £225 per day for each board member.

  Rather than scaling down expenditures, we are consulting the London boroughs on proposals to wind up the residuary body by 31 March 1996.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10069]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]My Department's policy is not to gold plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. Officials are required to draw Ministers' attention to any elements of proposed regulations which go further than the EC directive concerned strictly requires, and I am exploring ways of ensuring that implementing regulations clearly explain which elements derive from the directive and, where relevant, why additional elements have been included. The presumption is always against any addition. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10051]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]Official guidance on gold-plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive has already issued an instruction to its staff that other options should always be considered before the possibility of new regulations or approved codes of practice are considered, and that where such regulations or codes are proposed to Ministers they should be accompanied by a memorandum explaining any points where the requirements go beyond any EC directive. A copy of instruction, "General Administrative Procedures (GAP) No. 8—A Short Guide to Regulating in HSE", is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authorities run their housing rent accounts on a surplus; and if he will list those authorities. [10506]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]Based on returns submitted to the Department, local authorities' housing revenue account opening balances for 1994–95 totalled £745 million. Their end-year balances totalled £756 million; 46 per cent. of authorities increased their balances during the year. Those authorities are as follows:

  Alnwick

  Arun

  Aylesbury

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  239

  Basildon

  Bath

  Bedford

  Berwick upon Tweed

  Bexley

  Blaby

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Bridgnorth

  Brighton

  Broxbourne

  Burnley

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cannock Chase

  Canterbury

  Caradon

  Carrick

  Castle Morpeth

  Castle Point

  Chelmsford

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Chester le Street

  Colchester

  Corby

  Craven

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Dacorum

  Derbyshire Dales

  Dudley

  Ealing

  East Hertfordshire

  East Lindsey

  East Staffordshire

  East Yorkshire

  Eden

  Elmbridge

  Enfield

  Epping Forest

  Erewash

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean

  Fylde

  Glanford

  Great Yarmouth

  Greenwich

  Harborough

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrogate

  Harrow

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Holderness

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Huntingdonshire

  Isles of Scilly

  Kettering

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  Kingswood

  Kirklees

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  240

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  Melton

  Mid Suffolk

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  North Norfolk

  North Wiltshire

  Nuneaton

  Oadby and Wigston

  Oxford

  Penwith

  Plymouth

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Richmond upon Thames

  Richmondshire

  Rochdale

  Rochford

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Rutland

  South Derbyshire

  Salford

  Salisbury

  Sandwell

  Scarborough

  Scunthorpe

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Herefordshire

  South Holland

  South Kesteven

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  South Northamptonshire

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southwark

  Spelthorne

  St. Albans

  St. Edmundsbury

  Tameside

  Tandridge

  Teesdale

  Teignbridge

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Thanet

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tynedale

  Uttlesford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Wansbeck

  Watford

  Waveney

  Wealden

  West Oxford

  West Wiltshire

  Westminster

  Wigan

  Winchester

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Worcester

  Worthing

  Housing Allocations
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to use the regulation-making powers on housing allocations contained in part VI of the Housing Bill. [12185]

  Mr. Curry
  I have placed in the Library of the House today a copy of a consultation paper that invites views on the content of regulations about the allocation of housing accommodation by local authorities. The Government are committed to ensuring that social housing goes to those households with the greatest underlying needs, and the paper seeks views on ways to achieve this. It is proposed that the regulations should provide a framework within which each local authority would establish the allocation policy best suited to local needs.

HEALTH

  Health Service Employees
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued to health authorities or NHS hospital trusts regarding priority treatment to(a) key and (b) other NHS employees. [10255]

  Mr. Malone
  Decisions on treatment must be based on clinical need. Guidance was issued to the national health service in June 1991 in executive letter EL(91)84, "Joint Guidance (NHSME/JCC) to hospital consultants on GP Fundholding", and EL(94)19, "Clinical Priority on Waiting Lists", copies of which are available in the Library, underlining the principle.

  Electric Wheelchairs
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of new electrically-powered wheelchairs supplied by the national health service in the Greater Manchester area over the past three years. [11033]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of powered wheelchairs issued in the Greater Manchester area in each of the last three years is shown in the table. South Manchester health authority and South Manchester University Hospitals trust are the only Manchester authorities which have issued powered wheelchairs.

  Number

  1992–93

  South Manchester DHA

  467

  1993–94

  South Manchester DHA

  551

  1994–95

  South Manchester University Hospitals

  484

  Source:

  DH K073 returns.

  Boundary and organisational changes may mean that the data are not strictly comparable year on year.

  Nurse Training, Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was allocated to the training of nurses in the Greater Manchester area for the last year for which figures are available. [11034]
  242
  Mr. Horam
  Manchester college of midwifery and nursing and the Northern college of nursing, midwifery and health studies are the major establishments training nurses in the Greater Manchester area. The table shows the contracts for the financial year 1995–96 that North-West regional health authority has with these two colleges.

  College

  Column 1 £

  Column 2 £

  Column 3 £

  Manchester

  7,894,967

  1,780,789

  4,200,000

  Northern

  7,182,052

  1,497,164

  3,777,629

  Total

  15,077,019

  3,277,953

  7,977,629

  Manchester: Manchester college of midwifery and nursing.

  Northern: Northern college of nursing, midwifery and health studies.

  The figures in column 1 include the costs relating to:

  (i) all Project 2000 and midwifery first registration training;

  (ii) some traditional RGN training;

  (iii) some second registration nursing programmes and all second registration midwifery;

  (iv) some post basic programmes including the higher award. Column 2 relates to payments to trusts, teacher development, redundancy provision etc.
  Column 3 relates to student bursaries.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1995,Official Report, column 383, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on mental illness, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the figures. [11094]

  Mr. Bowis
  Regional information on the number of beds and on finished consultant episodes is contained in "Bed availability for England" and in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England", respectively, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the cost to Dorset social services of implementation of the care programme approach for the mentally ill in the next year; and what support it will receive from Government funding. [10737]

  Mr. Bowls
  The care programme approach is a key element in the delivery of local mental health services. Local agencies should collaborate to ensure its implementation. In the year 1996–97, Dorset social services will receive £93.8 million for personal social services. It will also receive an allocation of mental illness specific grant, from which this year it has received £589,000.

  Anti-malaria Treatment
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received on adverse side effects arising from the new anti-malaria treatment Lariam, also known as Mefloquine; and if he will make a statement. [10664]
  243
  Mr. Horam
  From 1990, when Lariam was marketed in the United Kingdom, to 19 January 1996, the Medicines Control Agency has received 605 reports of 1,561 reactions. However, the receipt of a report of a reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by Lariam.

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total budget of each health authority, indicating the percentage devoted to mental health services. [10740]

  Mr. Horam
  For details of the planned 1996–97 initial cash limits for the new health authorities, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 19 December at column 1138. It is for health authorities to purchase health care for their resident population, taking account of local circumstances and characteristics and within the framework of national policies and priorities.

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of(a) people and (b) retired people taking out private health insurance in each of the last five years. [10750]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is shown in the table. Separate information on retired people is not available.

  Thousands

  United Kingdom

  Subscribers

  Numbers covered

  1990

  3,613

  7,558

  1991

  3,578

  7,433

  1992

  3,527

  7,190

  1993

  3,541

  6,757

  1994

  3,584

  6,809

  Source:

  Figures compiled by the Association of British Insurers to which figures for the Post office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society have been added.

  Meningitis
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to produce an educational video to be made available for general practitioners and school teachers to aid the early detection of meningitis. [10890]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department, working with the National Meningitis Trust, has produced an information leaflet about meningitis for parents and for young people entering further education. Copies of the leaflet are available through general practitioners surgeries and have been distributed through the college bags which are given to all new students. It is most unlikely that children who are ill with meningitis would be sent to school.
  244
  The National Meningitis Trust produced an information video, together with an information pack, in 1989; this pack was sent free of charge to every health education unit and public health department in the United Kingdom.

  GP Budgets
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) family health services authorities and (b) health authorities are able to provide information to hon. and right hon. Members on (i) drug budgets by named general practitioner practices, (ii) staff budgets by named general practitioner practices, (iii) development budgets by named general practitioner practices, (iv) computer reimbursement by named general practitioner practices and (v) the amount of funding holding savings; and what they have been spent on by named general practitioner fundholding practice. [10746]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for family health services authorities.

  Hospital Readmissions, Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Greater Manchester area were readmitted to hospital within one month of their discharge in the last three years. [11035]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an analysis of final allowed external finance limits compared with actual external finance limits outturn for each NHS trust for each year since 1991–92; [10932]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authority planned 1996–97 initial revenue cash limits per head of population by health authority. [10920]

  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Hepatitis
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the types of hepatitis that can be transmitted in blood for which the Blood Transfusion Service(a) tests and (b) does not test. [10753]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Blood Service tests donated blood for hepatitis B and C before use. New strains of hepatitis are identified from time to time. An expert advisory committee advises Ministers on whether suitable tests for these are available and should he introduced.

  Doctors (Alcohol)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues on the amount of alcohol doctors can drink while on duty. [10743]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Cancer Patients
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of terminally ill patients with cancer in acute hospital beds. [10763]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  "NHS Magazine"
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS management executive has spent so far on producing the "NHS Magazine"; and how many copies have been produced and distributed. [11105]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 15 January 1996,Official Report, at columns 344–45 for information on production costs/gross revenues.

  Information on the number of magazines produced and distributed is as follows:

  Issue 1: 30,000

  Issue 2: 35,000

  Issue 3: 35,000

  Health Information Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 227, if he will set out the differences between NHS guideline HSG(95)44 and guideline HSG(92)21. [11144]

  Mr. Horam
  The revised health service guidance, HSG(95)55, devolves responsibility for ensuring the provision of the freephone health information service to the new health authorities with effect from 1 April 1996. This is because of the abolition of regional health authorities, who are currently responsible for the provision of the service.

  In addition, the guidance sets out a revised core mandatory service specification and performance indicators for the service.

  Copies of HSG(95)44 will be placed in the Library.

  "Employment of Children"
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of all the submissions that he receives in respect of his document, "Employment of Children", at the end of the period for consultation. [11592]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have no plans to do so.

  Children Act 1989
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to amend the Children Act 1989 246
  following the ruling of the House of Lords on the appeal of Nottinghamshire county council; [11022]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implications for applications for care orders and related issues following the ruling of the House of Lords on the appeal by Nottinghamshire county council; [11023]

  (3) what are the implications for the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare, set out in the Children Act 1989 of the decision of the House of Lords on the appeal by Nottinghamshire county council. [11024]

  Mr. Bowis
  The implications of the judgment are being considered, but preliminary indications are that it will not be necessary to amend the Children Act 1989 and that existing guidance on good practice is not affected by the judgment.

  Unregistrable Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 228, what is the status of the advice given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to a director of social services in a letter dated 14 November 1995 on action to be taken in respect of poor practice in unregistrable children's homes. [11030]

  Mr. Bowis
  Common sense.

  Breast Screening
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of women aged 50 years who have breast screening, broken down by(a) district health authority and (b) regional health authority. [11028]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his calculation of the numbers of people who are addicted to(a) benzodiazapines, (b) other medicinal drugs, (c) heroin and (d) other illegal drugs. [11255]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not possible to measure the exact extent of a covert activity such as drug misuse. The available information is given in the Department of Health's Statistical Bulletin, "Drug Misuse Statistics" and, with respect to heroin, other opiate drugs (some of which are medicinal drugs) and cocaine, in tables 1 and 2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Statistics of Drug Addicts notified to the Home Office", United Kingdom 1994. Copies of both these publications are held in the Library.

  Deaths (Winter Months)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the ratio of deaths of those aged 60 years or above, occurring in December to March relative to the average figures for the following and preceding four months, by region, for each of the past five years; and if he will indicate the number of deaths involved in each case. [10552]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]The information is shown in the table.
  247

  Table 1: Excess winter deaths ratio1, 1990–952, for those aged 60 and over by health region of usual residence

  Health region of usual residence

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  1.18

  1.24

  1.15

  1.16

  1.15

  Yorkshire

  1.24

  1.26

  1.16

  1.20

  1.17

  Trent

  1.23

  1.25

  1.17

  1.19

  1.18

  East Anglian

  1.26

  1.19

  1.18

  1.22

  1.18

  North-West Thames

  1.22

  1.23

  1.15

  1.13

  1.19

  North-East Thames

  1.21

  1.23

  1.16

  1.20

  1.19

  South-East Thames

  1.23

  1.21

  1.15

  1.17

  1.16

  South-West Thames

  1.24

  1.22

  1.18

  1.12

  1.18

  Wessex

  1.25

  1.19

  1.16

  1.14

  .18

  Oxford

  1.24

  1.19

  1.14

  1.17

  .17

  South Western

  1.25

  1.22

  1.13

  1.15

  1.17

  West Midlands

  1.26

  1.21

  1.16

  1.14

  1.14

  Mersey

  1.26

  1.19

  1.16

  1.11

  1.18

  North Western

  1.24

  1.23

  1.17

  1.13

  1.15

  Wales

  1.24

  1.20

  1.15

  1.10

  1.16

  1Ratio of deaths occurring in December to March relative to the average figures for the following and preceding four months.

  2Data for 1993–95 are provisional.

  Table 2: Death occurrences, 1990–951, for those aged 60 and over, by health region of usual residence

  Health region of usual residence

  August to November 1990

  December 1990 to March 1991

  April to July 1991

  August to November 1991

  December1991 to March 1992

  April to July 1992

  August to November 1992

  December 1992 to March 1993

  Northern

  10,134

  12,115

  10,352

  10,397

  12,624

  9,921

  10,276

  11,743

  Yorkshire

  11,255

  13,946

  11,298

  11,312

  13,884

  10,777

  11,341

  13,218

  Trent

  14,317

  17,751

  14,486

  14,024

  17,556

  14,061

  14,518

  17,064

  East Anglian

  6,154

  7,189

  6,237

  6,313

  7,539

  6,396

  6,144

  7,376

  North-West Thames

  8,853

  10,893

  9,015

  8,948

  10,921

  8,833

  8,886

  10,074

  North-East Thames

  10,661

  12,820

  10,479

  10,597

  12,815

  10,294

  10,390

  12,158

  South-East Thames

  11,581

  14,360

  11,742

  11,600

  13,995

  11,551

  11,814

  13,624

  South-West Thames

  9,191

  11,460

  9,248

  9,104

  11,062

  8,992

  9,046

  10,724

  Wessex

  9,325

  11,663

  9,268

  9,312

  11,107

  9,286

  9,303

  11,121

  Oxford

  5,970

  7,542

  6,230

  6,180

  7,342

  6,169

  6,346

  7,186

  South Western

  10,560

  13,444

  10,939

  10,942

  13,163

  10,680

  11,068

  12,488

  West Midlands

  15,194

  19,225

  15,428

  15,253

  18,377

  15,175

  15,597

  17,970

  Mersey

  7,321

  9,466

  7,689

  7,573

  9,015

  7,529

  7,510

  8,806

  North Western

  12,901

  16,277

  13,265

  12,917

  15,906

  12,865

  12,973

  15,335

  Wales

  9,330

  11,613

  9,419

  9,249

  11,191

  9,348

  9,459

  11,068

  April-July 1993

  August-November 1993

  December 1993–March 1994

  April-July 1994

  August-November 1994

  December 1994-March 1995

  April-July 1996

  Northern

  10,229

  10,980

  11,828

  9,399

  9,381

  10,965

  9,753

  Yorkshire

  11,423

  12,010

  13,931

  11,184

  11,229

  13,149

  11,200

  Trent

  14,629

  15,668

  17,836

  14,370

  14,235

  17,022

  14,621

  East Anglian

  6,372

  6,703

  8,790

  7,683

  7,571

  8,972

  7,637

  North-West Thames

  8,660

  9,124

  9,322

  7,353

  7,385

  8,844

  7,483

  North-East Thames

  10,487

  11,043

  12,796

  10,309

  10,521

  12,482

  10,433

  South-East Thames

  11,971

  12,378

  14,105

  11,694

  11,623

  13,605

  11,818

  South-West Thames

  9,070

  10,009

  10,772

  9,218

  9,030

  10,748

  9,114

  Wessex

  9,939

  10,381

  11,496

  9,841

  9,610

  11,577

  9,986

  Oxford

  6,289

  6,569

  7,542

  6,317

  6,139

  7,321

  6,328

  South Western

  10,976

  11,961

  13,125

  10,929

  10,776

  12,848

  11,250

  West Midlands

  15,474

  16,938

  18,374

  15,262

  15,517

  17,976

  16,012

  Mersey

  7.611

  8,479

  8,899

  7,532

  7,500

  8,827

  7,410

  North Western

  13,169

  14,465

  15,726

  13,358

  13,565

  15,457

  13,358

  Wales

  9,791

  10,749

  11,218

  9,672

  9,438

  11,108

  9,795

  1Data for 1993–95 are provisional.

  248

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Works of Art (Royal Collection)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her latest estimate of when the compilation of the inventory of royal collection of works of art will be completed. [10636]

  Mr. Sproat
  The royal collection—which is a department of the royal household and is not a responsibility of my Department—is responsible for compiling the inventory of the works of art. However, I understand that the inventory is scheduled for completion by the end of 1997.

  Tourism (North-East)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what measures are being taken by her Department to promote tourism in the north-east; [10916]

  (2) what has been the level of funding of the Northumbrian tourist board over the last five years. [10915]

  Mr. Sproat
  Government support for tourism is channelled through the statutory British Tourist Authority—BTA—and English tourist board, ETB. Through the ETB, support is made available to the 11 non-statutory regional tourist boards, including the Northumbria tourist board, which helps them undertake a variety of marketing and development activities of benefit to the tourism industry in their regions.

  The total funding made available to the Northumbria tourist board is as follows:

  1991–92: £479,000

  1992–93: £505,000

  1993–94: £484,000

  1994–95: £394,000

  1995–96: £364,0001

  1 Figure for 1995ߝ96 is an estimate as the Northumbria tourist board has until 31 March 1996 to complete the draw-down of funds from ETB.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the value of tourism to the north-east of England in the last five years. [10917]

  Mr. Sproat
  The estimated value of tourism to the north-east of England in the last five years is:

  £ million

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Staying visits:

  UK residents

  225

  255

  275

  310

  355

  Overseas residents

  79

  93

  96

  134

  131

  Day visits

  176

  220

  289

  305

  312

  Total

  480

  568

  660

  749

  798

  Source:

  United Kingdom Tourism Survey, International Passenger Survey, Leisure Day Visits Survey 1988–89 and Day Visits in Great Britain Survey 1991–92.

  Churches
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will seek powers to enable her to intervene to protect the internal fabric of churches whose construction and decor is of architectural or historical importance. [10905]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since 1 October 1994, ecclesiastical exemption from statutory listed building and conservation area controls has been confined to specified denominations which have satisfactory internal procedures to protect listed churches and unlisted churches in conservation areas. The Government are monitoring the operation of the procedures and have undertaken to review the position formally after two years. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend retains power to remove the exemption in any in individual case and will consider doing so wherever necessary.

  Libraries (North-West)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many libraries in the north-west region have been closed since 1987. [11055]

  Mr. Sproat
  This information is not held centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's public library statistics, copies of which are held in the House Library, provide information about the total number of libraries in each library authority at the end of every financial year. These do not, however, record the opening or closure of library facilities.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) which official of her Department is responsible for monitoring Oflot's compliance with guidance provided by her Department; [8612]

  (2) which official of Oflot is responsible for ensuring that the Department is informed of any failure to observe guidance provided by the Department. [8611]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]None. Oflot is an independent, non-ministerial Government Department. As head of the Department, the director-general is responsible for compliance with various central guidance issued to Departments.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what(a) number and (b) species of animals and birds were killed under licence in the royal parks during 1995. [10151]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from V. Robertson to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 24 January 1996:
  In the absence of the chief executive, I have been asked by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to reply to your parliamentary question on the number and species of birds and animals that were killed under licence in the royal parks during 1995.
  251

  Greylag geese

  Canada geese

  Hyde park and Kensington gardens

  0

  63

  St. James's park

  15

  19

  Regent's park

  15

  86

  Environmental Appraisal
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the forthcoming heritage Green Paper will be subject to an environmental appraisal in accordance with the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", published by the Department of the Environment; and if she will publish the environmental appraisal. [10611]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]My right hon. Friend has considered the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" and is satisfied that an appraisal of the environmental effects in relation to the proposed heritage Green Paper is not appropriate at this time. The main purpose of the Green Paper will be to consult on a range of proposals for improving the statutory protection of the built heritage. We will keep this decision under review as appropriate.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Stamps (Direct Selling)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of direct sales of postage stamps by the Royal Mail in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9489]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Post Office advises me that the total actual and estimated values of direct sales of postage stamps by post, excluding philatelic items, by the Royal Mail in 1993, 1994 and 1995 are as set out in the table. Sales of postage stamps by post office outlets are also shown.

  £000

  Sales of postage stamps via post office outlets

  Direct postal sales of postage stamps by Royal Mail

  1993–94

  1,128,944

  590

  1994–95

  1,126,216

  3,087

  1995–96

  11,140,000

  18,300

  1 Figures provided for 1995–96 represent.estimated sales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research he has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned into the effect of directly selling postage stamps by post on the viability of sub-post offices throughout the British Isles; and if he will make a statement. [9487]
  252
  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. Decisions on the methods by which postage stamps are sold to customers are the operational responsibility of Post Office management.

  However, I understand that the Post Office considers it unlikely that direct sales of postage stamps by post, excluding philatelic items, which it is estimated will constitute approximately 0.6 per cent. of total postage stamp sales in 1995–96, will have any significant impact on the viability of the nationwide network of sub-post offices.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received on the subject of direct postal selling of postage stamps to businesses by the Royal Mail; and if he will make a statement. [9488]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I am not aware of any representations made to my Department on the subject of direct postal selling of postage stamps to businesses by the Royal Mail.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of overseas investment in 1979; and what it is currently at constant prices. [9579]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information, in current prices, is set out in the table. Information in constant prices is not available.

  Book value of foreign direct investment

  £ billion, current prices

  UK investment overseas

  Overseas investment in the UK

  1979

  31.4

  22.0

  1994

  183.3

  139.7

  Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual level of investment in the United Kingdom in 1979; and what it is currently at constant prices. [9580]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Total fixed investment in the United Kingdom in 1979 amounted to £75.8 billion at 1990 prices. For the four quarters ending in September 1995, the latest period for which figures are available, the level of investment was £100.2 billion, a third higher than the 1979 level.

  Chocolate Exports
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much chocolate and chocolate products by(a) volume and (b) value was exported from the United Kingdom to (i) other EU states and (ii) elsewhere in each of the last five years; and if he will estimate how many United Kingdom jobs depend on these exports. [9944]

  Mr. Oppenehim
  Information on UK exports of cocoa, chocolate and their products1 is given in the following table. In 1993, employment in the cocoa and chocolate manufacturing industry2 was 25,500 in Great Britain. Estimates are not made of the number of jobs that depend upon chocolate and cocoa exports.
  253

  UK exporters of cocoa, chocolate and their products

  Thousand metric tonnes

  £ million

  1990

  EU

  55.8

  115.7

  Others

  64.9

  127.0

  Total

  120.7

  242.7

  1991

  EU

  66.1

  143.7

  Others

  63.6

  125.3

  Total

  129.7

  269.0

  1992

  EU

  73.4

  165.7

  Others

  70.7

  140.3

  Total

  144.1

  306.0

  1993

  EU

  76.7

  179.8

  Others

  91.5

  174.2

  Total

  168.3

  354.0

  1994

  EU

  82.3

  194.7

  Others

  98.9

  205.8

  Total

  181.2

  400.5

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the UK.

  Notes:

  1Cocoa, chocolate and their products are defined as Groups 072 and 073 of the Standard International Trade Classification(Revision 3).

  2 The cocoa and chocolate manufacturing industry is defined by subclass 15.84/1 of the Standard Industrial Classification (1992).

  Sydney Olympics
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what actions he is taking to ensure that British firms secure construction work for the Sydney olympics. [10029]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department has established the Sydney olympics UK business task force to identify and disseminate business opportunities arising from the preparations for the Sydney games. Working with the UK and Australian public and private sectors, it is the job of the task force to ensure that UK industry is well positioned to win contracts in a range of areas, including construction.

  Overseas Exhibitions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the overseas exhibitions for trade fairs displaying military, security, police or paramilitary services or products his Department has provided support or joint venture funding for British companies to attend or exhibit at since 1988; what has been the value of such DTI support; and which companies have received such funding. [10272]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The DTI provided support to United Kingdom firms to exhibit towards the cost of participation at the following overseas exhibitions in the form of grants towards the cost of participation:
  254

  Event

  Number of firms

  Support (£)

  Piraeus Defendory—October 1988

  49

  293,246

  Sydney Aussie Air—October 1988

  9

  67,144

  Essen Security—October 1988

  20

  22.877

  Paris Europrotection—November 1988

  11

  13,741

  Beijing Asiaindex—November 1988

  21

  89,855

  Bangkok Defence Asia—December 1988

  18

  81.614

  Dubai Air—January 1989

  20

  137.902

  Ankara Idea—May 1989

  30

  129,430

  Ottawa Armx—May 1989

  21

  58,959

  Paris Airshow—June 1989

  79

  165,334

  Washington Comdef—October 1989

  26

  163,028

  Canberra Aidex—November 1989

  9

  38,891

  Singapore Asian Aerospace—February 1990

  60

  277,828

  Madrid Sicur—March 1990

  27

  70,407

  Kuala Lumpur—March 1990

  52

  209,430

  Baltimore Copex—May 1990

  21

  20,660

  Piraeus Defendory—October 1990

  32

  174,131

  Paris Expoprotection—November 1990

  17

  27,448

  Essen Security—November 1990

  20

  18,153

  Washington Comdef—November 1990

  12

  34,131

  Bangkok Asia Defence—December 1990

  12

  56,332

  Miami Copex—February 1991

  17

  15,680

  Baltimore Copex—May 1991

  15

  14.052

  Singapore Security—May 1991

  8

  17,144

  Paris Airshow—June 1991

  52

  144,634

  Minneapolis lacp—October 1991

  6

  4,775

  Dubai Air—November 1991

  73

  332,277

  Ankara Idea—November 1991

  28

  88,939

  Seoul Defence—November 1991

  26

  78,923

  Canberra Aidex—November 1991

  16

  52,731

  Utrecht Security—November 1991

  14

  13,651

  Riyadh Astex—December 1991

  16

  28,633

  Miami Copex—February 1992

  11

  21,386

  Singapore Asian Aerospace—February 1992

  45

  158,218

  Madrid Sicur—March 1992

  11

  21,386

  Kuala Lumpur Dsa—April 1992

  63

  171,331

  Baltimore Copex—May 1992

  9

  8,865

  Hong Kong Securtex—May 1992

  12

  33,008

  Bahrein Medef—May 1992

  12

  37,558

  Paris Eurosatory—September 1992

  25

  76,823

  Johannesburg Interbou—August 1992

  10

  20,841

  Paris Expoprotection—September 1992

  14

  37,636

  Piraeus Defendory—October 1992

  13

  65,972

  Essen Security—October 1992

  15

  18,859

  Riyadh Astex—October 1992

  15

  50,401

  Budapest Security—November 1992

  6

  9,978

  Abu Dhabi Defence—February 1993

  77

  281,963

  Singapore Security Asia—February 1993

  10

  30,012

  Baltimore Copex—May 1993

  9

  10,605

  Paris Airshow—June 1993

  32

  72,856

  Ankara Idef—September 1993

  11

  62,694

  Utrecht Security—October 1993

  8

  13,389

  Budapest Security—November 1993

  9

  18,946

  Dubai Air—November 1993

  39

  193,101

  Paris Milipol—November 1993

  7

  17,659

  Seoul Defence—November 1993

  28

  87,971

  Poznan Securex—January 1994

  8

  17.508

  Singapore Asian Aerospace—February 1994

  54

  247,078

  Madrid Sicur—March 1994

  8

  15,885

  Bangkok Securitex—June 1994

  7

  23,206

  Kuala Lumpur Dsa—April 1994

  62

  241,906

  Dubai Indepo—May 1994

  10

  26,506

  Hong Kong Securitex—June 1994

  11

  31,116

  Paris Eurosatory—June 1994

  5

  65,256

  Las Vegas Asis—September 1994

  11

  29,745

  Piraeus Defendory—October 1994

  10

  47,455

  Essen Security—October 1994

  20

  21,247

  Abu Dhabi Idex—March 1995

  88

  442,867

  Singapore Security Asia—April 1995

  19

  55,047

  Paris Airshow—June 1995

  48

  72.002

  New Orleans Asis—September 1995

  13

  30,505

  Bangkok Defence—September 1995

  14

  54.496

  Ankara ldef—September 1995

  8

  75.850

  Berlin Sitech—September 1995

  10

  14.246

  255

  Event

  Number of.firms

  Support (£)

  Seoul Defence—September 1995

  18

  72,194

  Utrecht Security—October 1995

  5

  8,220

  Dubai Air—November 1995

  27

  149,093

  Paris Milipol—November 1995

  12

  30,396

  The provisions of the Data Protection Acts precludes the release of information about individual firms.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what DTI support is provided to(a) the Defence Manufacturers Association and (b) Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers to support British companies to attend or exhibit at overseas military, security, police or paramilitary exhibitions. [10273]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Both associations are recognised sponsor organisations which may organise official groups of United Kingdom firms and are therefore eligible for support under the terms of the trade fairs support scheme and the outward mission scheme. Support under the former is in the form of grants towards the cost of participation and in the latter it is in the form of a travel grant.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Parliament of the Board of Trade what support or joint venture funding his Department has provided to British companies to attend or exhibit at the forthcoming Indepo, Dubai from 14 to 16 January; what is the value of such support; and to which companies it was given. [10274]

  Mrs. Oppenheim
  No DTI support was provided to any British companies exhibiting at Indepo Dubai which took place on 14 to 16 January 1996.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support or joint venture funding his Department has provided to British companies to attend or exhibit at the defence services Asia exhibition, Kuala Lumpur 1995; what was the value of such support; and to which companies it was given. [10275]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There was no exhibition in 1995. The most recent exhibition took place in 1994. The DTI provided support for United Kingdom firms to exhibit in the form of grants towards the cost of participation. Support totalling £241,906 was provided to 59 exhibiting companies. The provisions of the Data Protection Acts precludes the release of information about individual companies.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department provided in the last five years for British companies attending and exhibiting at Covert operations and police exhibition—COPEX—exhibitions throughout the world; what was the value of such support; and to which companies it was given. [10198]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The DTI provided support to United Kingdom firms to exhibit in the form of grants towards the cost of participation. Support totalling £81,641 was provided at six COPEX exhibitions throughout the world in the last five years. The provisions of the Data Protection Acts precludes the release of information about individual companies.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support or joint venture funding is being 256
  provided to British companies to attend or exhibit at the forthcoming COPEX Jordan scheduled for 26 and 27 March; at what cost; and to which companies. [10195]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No DTI support is being provided to any British companies exhibiting at COPEX Jordan taking place on 26 to 27 March 1996.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department provided for British companies attending and exhibiting at COPEX Miami in February 1991; what was the value of such support; and to which companies it was given. [10197]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The DTI provided support for United Kingdom firms to exhibit in the form of grants towards the cost of participation. Support totalling £15,680 was provided to 17 companies exhibiting at this event. The provision of the Data Protection Acts precludes the release of information about individual companies.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support or joint venture funding was provided to British companies which attended or exhibited at the international defence industry and civil aviation fair held in Turkey in November 1995; at what cost; and to which companies. [10196]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This event took place in Ankara in September 1995. The DTI provided support for United Kingdom firms to exhibit in the form of grants towards the cost of participation. Support totalling £75,850 was provided to eight companies exhibiting at this event. The provisions of the Data Protection Acts precludes the release of information about individual companies.

  Insurance Claims (Settlements)
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government have taken to encourage speedy settlements by insurance companies. [10307]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. This is a matter primarily for the insurance industry. The Association of British Insurers, the industry's principal trade association, has a code of practice which requires member insurers to settle valid claims without delay.

  Dealing swiftly with claims is in the interest not only of policyholders but insurers. By settling claims quickly, they reduce their administrative costs. Failure to do so will encourage customers to turn to insurers offering better service.

  Exports to Saudi Arabia (Outstanding Debt)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the total amount of debt outstanding for(a) six months and (b) 12 months in respect of (i) pharmaceutical products an (ii) other manufactured goods exported to Saudi Arabia. [10624]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department has no debts outstanding in respect of goods exported to Saudi Arabia. Short-term cover for goods such as pharmaceutical products is provided by the private sector and estimates of total debts outstanding are not available.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of overseas investment in the United Kingdom; and what it was in(a) 1979 and (b) 1990. [11062]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information, in current price terms, is as follows:

  Book value of overseas direct investment in the United Kingdom

  £billion, current prices

  1979

  22.0

  1990

  113.2

  1994

  139.7

  Retailers (European Exports)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage British retailers to expand their activities into the rest of the European Union. [10901]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Through the "Business in Europe" service, this Department, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office commercial staff based in other member states, offer a wide range of information, advice and practical assistance to help firms do business in European Union countries. Many British retailers are already well established on the continent, and I encourage all UK companies, including retailers, to make full use of the support we can offer.

  Export Opportunities (California)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what programmes exist to enable United Kingdom companies to identify export opportunities in California. [10883]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Overseas trade services, administered jointly by my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provide a wide range of support functions to UK exporters. This support is available to companies interested in opportunities in California where there are two commercial posts, in Los Angeles and in San Francisco, to offer help and assistance.

  My Department's north America now campaign, which was launched in March 1993, provides additional support for companies interested in business opportunities in the United States. A team of export promoters seconded to the Department from the private sector is also available to give advice to exporters to the United States.

  Exports (US)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, in the order of their introduction, all current initiatives which give information and assistance to companies which wish to export to the United States. [10882]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Overseas trade services, administered jointly by my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provide a package of support measures to help exporters to all markets including the United States. These include help with market research,258
  finding representatives in the United States, support at trade fairs, outward and inward trade missions and information on export opportunities. A team of export promoters seconded to my Department from UK industry is also available to help exporters.

  In addition, my Department's north America now campaign provides additional help for UK companies seeking to do business in the United States. Seminars and clinics are held on a range of topics, both sectoral and cross-sectoral in nature, to alert UK companies to the opportunities in the market and the methods of doing business there. A range of publications is available to exporters and help is offered with finding strategic partners in north America.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notices and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated; [10050]

  (2) what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10070]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answers 22 January 1996]: My Department's policy is not to gold plate EC directives by the additon of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments. Any guidance prepared by my Department on this subject will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what levels of export credit guarantees have been provided in each of the last 10 years in respect of contracts with(a) Nigeria, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Oman and (d) Indonesia; and what amounts related to the sale of defence equipment. [9823]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: The value of project and capital goods liabilities assumed in each of the named markets together with that element relating to defence equipment—shown in brackets—was as follows:

  £ Million

  Indonesia

  Saudi Arabia

  Oman

  Nigeria

  1985–86

  140

  (83)

  52

  (6)

  77

  (17)

  0

  —

  1986–87

  73

  (51)

  0

  —

  66

  (37)

  23

  (0)

  1987–88

  48

  (6)

  15

  (0)

  0

  —

  0

  —

  1988–89

  67

  (3)

  450

  (450)

  0

  —

  34

  (0)

  1989–90

  52

  (0)

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  1990–91

  150

  (3)

  0

  —

  350

  (350)

  0

  —

  1991–92

  124

  (2)

  17

  (0)

  0

  —

  0

  —

  1992–93

  450

  (442)

  225

  (225)

  44

  (44)

  0

  —

  1993–94

  100

  (6)

  751

  (750)

  413

  (344)

  0

  —

  1994–95

  220

  (113)

  225

  (225)

  80

  (54)

  0

  —

  Stamp Prices
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what increase in the cost of(a) first-class and (b) second-class stamps he expects following the Budget. [9190]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: I understand that the Post Office has undertaken to maintain the existing level of postal charges until at least 31 March this year. It will be for the Post Office in the first instance to put forward a specific proposal on the amount and timing of the increase it believes will necessary thereafter.

  Character Ceramics, Falmouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department received from hon. Members about grant aid by his Department to Character Ceramics. [10110]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: No such representations were received.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much Character Ceramics, Falmouth, received from his Department in grant aid and on what date. [10173]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: A total of £104,000 was paid in three tranches between March and September 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Mechanical Restraints)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the(a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average time during which inmates at HMP New Hall, Wakefield, have been detained in a body belt or mechanical restraint, since January 1990; [8444]

  (2) how often the Home Office official at HMP New Hall, Wakefield, responsible for the punishment of inmates has authorised the use of (a) body belts, (b) ankle straps, (c) handcuffs and (d) special segregation unit cells for each year since January 1990; [8422]

  (3) on how many occasions since January 1990 inmates in HMP New Hall, Wakefield, have been kept in body belts for more than 12 hours; [8438]

  (4) on how many occasions since January 1990 inmates at HMP New Hall, Wakefield, have been (a) detained in a strip cell and (b) restrained by body belts for (i) medical or (ii) non-medical purposes. [8441]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the use of restraints, the segregation unit and the strip cell at New Hall prison since January 1990.
  260
  Since January 1990, inmates have been detained in a strip cell for medical reasons on 136 occasions. New Hall prison did not have a segregation unit until 1992. Since then, inmates have been detained on 46 occasions in the unit for non-medical reasons.
  On no occasion since January 1990 has any inmate at New Hall prison been restrained by bodybelts or other mechanical restraint.
  No official responsible for the punishment of inmates at New Hall prison has, since January 1990, authorised the use of bodybelts. ankle straps or handcuffs. Use of the special segregation unit cells has been authorised on the following occasions. 1992—twice: 1993—once; 1994—once; 1995—once.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about the policy of handcuffing pregnant prisoners receiving hospital treatment around childbirth. [7540]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the handcuffing of pregnant prisoners.
  The Home Secretary announced on 18 January revised arrangements on the use of restraints on prisoners attending hospital. The Prison Service implemented the revised policy on 19 January. Amendments to the Prison Service security manual reflecting the revised policy will be issued as soon as possible and placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stage labour is deemed to have begun in the context of paragraph 60.18 of the current edition of the Prison Service security manual. [9492]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 January [996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to he given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking at what stage labour is deemed to have begun in the context of paragraph 60.18 of the current edition of the Prison Service Security Manual.
  All decisions about the onset of labour arc made by nursing and medical staff attending the mother at the time.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures govern requests by(a) a doctor and (b) a midwife for the removal of handcuffs from a prisoner giving birth; and what discretion prison officers have on whether to comply with such a request. [9491]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 January 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to he given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what procedures govern requests by (a) a doctor and (b) a midwife for the removal of handcuffs from a prisoner giving birth; and what discretion prison officers have on whether to comply with such a request.

  261
  The Home Secretary announced on 18 January revised arrangements on the use of restraints on prisoners attending hospital, which were implemented by the Prison Service on 19 January. Amendments to the Prison Service security manual reflecting the revised policy will be issued as soon as possible and placed in the Library of the House.
  From now on, no female prisoner admitted to hospital to give birth will have physical restraints applied from the time she arrives at the hospital until she leaves.

  Fraud
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total value of fraud cases reported in the last five years. [9562]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures are collected centrally on the number of fraud offences recorded by the police, but not on their total value.

  Bull Bars
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all bull bars have now been removed from police vehicles. [9938]

  Mr. Maclean
  As I stated in my reply to an earlier question from the hon. Member on 29 November 1995,Official Report, columns 781–82, this is an operational matter for chief constables. The information requested is not available centrally, but the Association of Chief Police Officers has written to every force suggesting that they remove bull bars from their vehicles.

  Internet
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what legal controls there are in respect of material providing instructions on explosives and weapons on the Internet; and if he will make a statement; [10479]

  (2) if he will press for the prosecution of those Internet providers who publish the detailed processes of making explosives and bombs; and if he will make a statement. [10483]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no specific legal controls in respect of material providing instructions on explosives and weapons whether that material is contained on the Internet or any other medium. A person could, however, be liable to prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 if they actually carried out the instructions to make an explosive device, or the Control of Explosives Regulations 1991 for simply acquiring or keeping explosives without an explosives certificate from the police.

  In such cases, it is the responsibility of the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation, and that of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute those alleged to be responsible for the material.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to meet the Internet providers so as to eliminate the practice of the Internet making available chemical and other data required for making bombs and incendiary devices; [10481]
  262
  (2) how he proposes to prevent children and students having access via the Internet to material illustrating how explosives and bombs might be made; [10480]

  (3) what legislation he plans to bring forward to prevent Internet providers publishing manuals on bomb making and terrorist activities; and if he will make a statement. [10482]

  Mr. Maclean
  Officials have discussed with Internet service providers concerns about the availability of unsuitable material on the Internet, and ways of controlling access by children and young people to such material. The Government are currently considering the most suitable way of tackling the issue.

  The general question of regulation of the Internet and other computer networks is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has commissioned a short study on the subject of unsuitable material on the Internet to identify the issues and possible solutions.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the availability on the Internet of information on the making of bombs and the materials required for the making of bombs and on the techniques of terrorism. [11032]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received one letter expressing concern about the availability of information on the Internet providing instructions on how to make bombs and on terrorist techniques.

  Prison Service (Director General)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional help and support the Deputy Director General of the Prison Service is receiving pending the appointment of a new Director General. [10878]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The temporary Director General of the Prison Service receives the same administrative support as his predecessor.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 966, against whom a case was brought by the Commission for Racial Equality on the basis that the ethnic profile of employees was such as to be inconsistent with appointments made purely on merit; if he will indicate in that case the percentage of employees who were from (a) white European and (b) ethnic minority backgrounds; and if he will make a statement of the implications of that case for (i) employers generally and (ii) the Commission for Racial Equality in particular, which employs high percentages of its work force from the ethnic minorities. [11048]
  263
  Mr. Kirkhope
  My reply of 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 966, was incorrectly printed and should have read:
  "None of the cases brought or supported by the commission against employers in the last year was on the basis that the ethnic profile of its employees was such as to be inconsistent with appointments made purely on merit.
  Information on whether such a profile has been a significant factor in other cases could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".

  Arrangements have already been made to amend the bound volume of the Official Report.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy in future to appoint to the Commission for Racial Equality such members that its ethnic profile broadly reflects that of the United Kingdom as a whole. [11046]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We believe that it is desirable for the 15 members of the Commission for Racial Equality to be drawn from a broad range of communities in the United Kingdom and we shall continue to take this into account when making appointments.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 965, if he will require the Commission for Racial Equality in future to record the ethnic background both of complainants and of those against whom the complaint is made. [11047]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Commission for Racial Equality already monitors the ethnic origin of complainants. It is not practicable to monitor the ethnic origin of those against whom the complaint is made as these will usually be organisations rather than individuals.

  West Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of constables employed by the West Yorkshire police force currently; what the figures were in(a) 1990, (b) 1985 and (c) 1980; and what is the projected figure for 1999. [10733]

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of constables employed by West Yorkshire police in these years was:

  (a) September 1980: 3,660

  (b) September 1985: 3,739

  (c) September 1990: 3,992

  (d) September 19951: 3,961

  1Latest date centrally available.

  Between March and September 1995 the number of constables in the force increased by 89. The chief constable has also said that he expects overall police strength in West Yorkshire to increase by 135 in the year to March 1996. Projections for 1999 are a matter for the chief constable and police authority. However, West Yorkshire police's share of the extra funding being provided to recruit 5,000 additional officers nationally over three years is likely to be sufficient to enable 200 extra constables to be recruited by March 1999.

  Young Offenders
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total annual cost of dealing with young people aged 10 to 17 years in the judicial and custodial systems; [10940]

  (2) what is the average cost of processing the case of a juvenile offender from offence to completion, to (a) the police, (b) the Crown Prosecution Service, (c) the social services, (d) the education system and (e) the courts, and in total. [10866]

  Mr. Maclean
  We estimate that, including police, court, legal aid, Crown Prosecution Service, probation and prison service costs, the total annual cost to the criminal justice system in 1994–95 of dealing with juvenile offenders aged 10 to 17 years was about £130 million. We estimate that the average cost was about £1,000. These estimates do not include the costs to social services and the education system, which are not available.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between the Whittington hospital county midwifery services and Her Majesty's Prison Holloway concerning access to medical care for women prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [11640]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what discussions have taken place between the Whittington Hospital County Midwifery Services and Holloway prison concerning access for medical care for woman prisoners.
  Discussions have taken place between Holloway and the Whittington Hospital over the provision of and access to a range of medical services. These discussions are continuing.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 19 October, 16 November and 13 December 1995 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Shah Shrana Ahmed of 18 Harcock close, Manchester. [11615]

  Mr. Howard
  I wrote to the right hon. Member about Mrs. Shah Shuara Ahmed on 22 January 1996.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 29 September, 2 November and 13 December 1995 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. S. Shah of 23 Sarnesfield close, Manchester. [11613]

  Mr. Howard
  I wrote to the right hon. Member about Mrs. S. Shah on 22 January 1996.
  265
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 10 October, 9 November and 13 December 1995 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Mohammed Ashfaq of 19 Sullivan street, Manchester. [11614]

  Mr. Howard
  I wrote to the right hon. Member about Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq on 22 January 1996.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will report on the responses he has received to the Green Paper on identity cards, Cm 2879. [12136]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Government's memorandum of evidence on identity cards to the Home Affairs Committee containing a summary of the responses received to the Green Paper.

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to visit Merseyside to discuss the police authority's budget; and if he will make a statement. [10473]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend would be happy to visit Merseyside when a suitable opportunity arises.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has proposed that Merseyside police authority's basic funding allocation for 1996–97 should increase by 3.2 per cent. over 1995–96. If it sets a budget for 1996–97 at the cap, spending could increase by £8 million—3.7 per cent. over the current financial year.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by the National Lottery Charities Board on start-up and running costs since its inception. [9175]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: From August 1994 to November 1995—the latest date for which figures are available—the National Lottery Charities Board spent £7.8 million, of which £2 million was on start-up costs and the remainder on running costs. This is around 3½ per cent. of the money then available to it from the national lottery distribution fund and is comparable with the corresponding figure for other general purpose grant givers.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, columns 26–29, what instructions he has issued to the franchising director regarding the assessment of the costs of a passenger rail franchise continuing to be operated by the British Railways Board rather than by private franchisee. [9940]
  266
  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director has a duty under section 5(1) (b) of the Railway Act 1993 to ensure that any payments made in pursuance of an agreement under section 52 of the Act, which enables the franchising director to secure provision by the British Railways Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the board of railway passenger services that are not provided under a franchise agreement, achieve economically and efficiently and objectives given to him by the Secretary of State. The franchising director has an objective to encourage efficiency and economy in the provision of railway services.

  Upper Thames Piers
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expressions of interest have been received by the Port of London Authority in the public piers on the upper Thames; what criteria he proposes to adopt in respect of access, charging policy and other operational considerations; and what safeguards will he required in respect of access by potential future riverbus services. [10260]

  Mr. Norris
  These are matters for the Port of London Authority.

  Al (Construction Work)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlie the areas where construction work on the Al(a) is delayed and (b) is taking place. [9688]

  Mr. Watts
  Criteria used in the review of the roads programme are set out in the document "Managing the trunk road programme", published on 28 November 1995. I have set out in the tables the status of the A1 schemes in the road programme.

  1. Construction soon to start

  Area

  A1(M)

  Alconbury-Peterborough (DBFO)—start of works later this year

  M1/Al

  Link road (Lofthouse-Branham) (DBFO)—start of works spring 1996

  2. Main programme

  Area

  A1(M)

  Wetherby-Walshford, North Yorkshire.Leeds MB

  A1(M)

  Wetherby Bypass, Leeds MB

  A1(M)

  Bramham—Wetherby, Leeds MB

  A1(M)

  Ferrybridge-Hook Moor, Wakefield MB. Leeds MB, North Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  Redhouse—Ferrybridge, Doncaster, MB.Wakefield MB, North Yorkshire Willowburn-Denwick Imp.Northumberland

  A1

  Morpeth-Lanehead Imp, Northumberland

  Al

  Blyth GSJ, Nottinghamshire

  Al

  Five Lanes End GSJ, Nottinghamshire

  Al

  Markham Moor GSJ, Nottinghamshire

  A1

  Tempsford GSJ, Bedfordshire

  267

  3. To be reviewed as potential smaller scale improvements

  Area

  A1(M)

  J6–8 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A1

  Gateshead Western Bypass, Gateshead MB

  4. Longer term

  Area

  A1(M)

  Leeming-Scotch Corner, North Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  Dishforth-Leeming, North Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  Tuxford-Blyth, Nottinghamshire

  A1(M)

  Newark-Tuxford, Nottinghamshire

  A1(M)

  Stamford—Newark, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire

  A1(M)

  Stamford Bypass, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire

  A1(M)

  Peterborough-Stamford, Cambridgeshire

  A1(M)

  Baldock-Alconbury, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire

  A1(M)

  J9–10 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A1(M)

  J4–6 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A1(M)

  J1–4 Widening Hertfordshire

  A19 (Emergency Telephones)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to install emergency telephones on the A19 between the River Tees and the River Tyne. [10914]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Cummings, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking when emergency telephones will be installed on the A19 between the River Tees and the River Tyne.
  This stretch of the A19 is included in the Al9 Dishforth to Tyne Tunnel DBFO contract. Tenders have been received, and the contract is currently being negotiated with the bidders. Under the terms of the contract, the DBFO Co will be obliged to provide emergency telephones between the River Tees and the River Tyne. The timescale for implementation will be agreed as part of the contract negotiations, but every effort will be made to achieve installation of the emergency telephones as soon as possible.

  Vehicle Owners
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the percentage of households who have(a) cars and (b) motor cycles for each shire county in England. [11153]

  Mr. Norris
  The 1995 county estimates of the percentage of households owning cars are shown in the table.

  Comparable information for motor cycles is not available.

  Per cent.

  Avon

  74

  Bedfordshire

  77

  Berkshire

  80

  Buckinghamshire

  82

  Cambridgeshire

  77

  Cheshire

  75

  268

  Per cent.

  Cleveland

  61

  Cornwall

  76

  Cumbria

  70

  Derbyshire

  71

  Devon

  74

  Dorset

  77

  Durham

  62

  East Sussex

  69

  Essex

  77

  Gloucestershire

  78

  Hampshire

  77

  Hereford and Worcester

  79

  Hertfordshire

  80

  Humberside

  65

  Isle of Wight

  71

  Kent

  75

  Lancashire

  68

  Leicestershire

  72

  Lincolnshire

  75

  Norfolk

  75

  North Yorkshire

  73

  Northamptonshire

  75

  Northumberland

  67

  Nottinghamshire

  67

  Oxfordshire

  79

  Shropshire

  77

  Somerset

  79

  Staffordshire

  73

  Suffolk

  76

  Surrey

  83

  Warwickshire

  77

  West Sussex

  78

  Wiltshire

  78

  Bus Deregulation, Warrington
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the Office of Fair Trading in relation to bus deregulation in Warrington. [11198]

  Mr. Norris
  My officials have frequent discussions with the Office of Fair Trading about various matters concerning the bus industry. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not my practice to disclose the details of any such discussions.

  Rail Privatisation, Manchester
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what payment is planned to be made to the Office of Passenger Franchising in respect of additional costs of supporting rail services in the Manchester passenger transport executive area arising from the privatisation of British Rail. [11319]

  Mr. Watts
  The amount has not been finalised. It will be published in the transport report in due course.

  London Transport (Funding)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what allocation his Department has made for core funding for London Transport for each of the years 1995–96 to 1998–99. [11223]
  269
  Mr. Norris
  The grant allocation for the London Transport core business for 1995–96 is £442 million. For later years, a combined allocation of grant has been made for the core business and the Jubilee line extension project, as follows: 1996–97, £939 million; 1997–98, £648 million; 1998–99, £429 million. The apportionment of grant between the two areas will be determined by London Transport in the light of the precise requirements of the Jubilee line extension. The final allocation of grant at outturn will be reported in the DOT departmental report for the relevant year.

  Nottingham City Transport
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Nottingham city council on the sale of shares in Nottingham City Transport to(a) First Bus and (b) the employees; and if he will make a statement. [11222]

  Mr. Norris
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not my practice to disclose the details of any discussions between the Department and an owning local authority on such an issue.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to regulate local council policy on the adoption of group II medical status for taxi drivers. [11134]

  Mr. Norris
  In their response to the Transport Committee's report on taxis and private hire vehicles (CM 2715) the Government agreed with the Committee's recommendation that applicants for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences should pass a medical similar to that required for bus and coach drivers. This will require primary legislation, and will thus depend upon a suitable legislative opportunity becoming available.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the SACTRA report was taken into consideration in the value for money assessment of the Newbury bypass. [11193]

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

  Letter front Lawrie Haynes to Mr Graham Allen, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if the SACTRA report was taken into consideration in the value for money assessment of the Newbury Bypass.
  The Highways Agency Study last year looked at the potential for induced traffic in line with the SACTRA report. It concluded that even if a severe test were to be applied, and very high levels of induced traffic assumed, the scheme would still represent good value for money.

  Yellow Lines
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which authorities are involved in the authorisation of yellow lines on roads. [11306]

  Mr. Norris
  Traffic authorities may cause or permit yellow lines to be placed on a road in support of an order that they have made restricting waiting or loading. In England, the Secretary of State is the traffic authority for trunk roads and motorways; the traffic authority for other roads is the relevant London borough, county council, metropolitan district council or unitary authority. The Traffic Director for London has powers to introduce stopping and loading restrictions on priority—red—routes, and his consent is required when proposals affect or are likely to affect the strategic road network in London. Under certain circumstances, orders made by local traffic authorities require the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Seafarers (Employment Prospects)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the employment prospects for British seafarers; and if he will make a statement. [9447]

  Mr. Norris
  We are pursuing a package of positive measures to improve the attractiveness of the red ensign and the employment prospects of UK seafarers. These include:Foreign earnings deduction for seafarers; 100 per cent. allowance on earning made abroad;
  Crew relief costs scheme: grants to alleviate the cost of flying British crews to and from distant ports.
  Government assistance for training scheme: grants for the training of British officer trainees to first certificate of competency;
  Development of certificated seafarers scheme: grants for British junior officers training for their second certificate of competency.

  Port Waste Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve port waste facilities. [12068]

  Mr. Norris
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, has today announced 18 new measures to reduce the discharge of waste from ships, including measures to improve the provision and use of port waste reception facilities. Copies of the announcement have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Indian Sub-continent (Travellers)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of people arriving and departing on flights to and from the Indian sub-continent in(a) each of the last 10 years and (b) each of the last 20 months. [10463]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The information requested is shown in the attached table.

  These data illustrate the approximate passenger flows between the United Kingdom and the Indian sub-continent.
  271

  Terminal passengers arriving and departing on flights between the Indian sub-continent and the United Kingdom

  Annual data

  Arrivals

  Departures

  1986

  308,780

  299,640

  1987

  339,432

  326,471

  1988

  394,606

  368,652

  1989

  452,915

  430,747

  1990

  477,839

  449,471

  1991

  426,242

  400,106

  1992

  441,725

  425,495

  1993

  467,003

  466,384

  1994

  581,707

  578,178

  Year ended October 1995

  620,540

  617,022

  Monthly data

  March 1994

  53,102

  53,868

  April 1994

  59,869

  35,270

  May 1994

  46,740

  31,889

  June 1994

  42,063

  40,148

  July 1994

  43,262

  54,910

  August 1994

  52,594

  41,726

  September 1994

  46,884

  40,194

  October 1994

  40,492

  53,099

  November 1994

  42,511

  52,914

  December 1994

  44,275

  66,447

  January 1995

  64,648

  63,359

  February 1995

  52,874

  50,196

  March 1995

  61,095

  52,638

  April 1995

  62,807

  43,727

  May 1995

  53,596

  33,859

  June 1995

  45,678

  43,161

  July 1995

  45,368

  58,043

  August 1995

  53,058

  45,326

  September 1995

  49,267

  46,185

  October 1995

  45,363

  61,167

  Source:

  CAA Airport Statistics

  Notes:

  1. Includes non-revenue passengers.

  2. Indian sub-Continent defined as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

  3. Departures/Arrivals equate to embarkation/disembarkation from the flight in the UK. It does not indicate the origin of the journey.

  4. Passengers may only be travelling to the UK to connect with other flights. Not all will enter the United Kingdom.

  5. Passengers embarking/disembarking in the Indian sub-Continent may do so only to connect with other flights and may have a final origin/destination outside the area.

  6. Where the airport authority is unable to supply a breakdown of the embarkation/disembarkation points of a flight serving more than one airport on the route, all passengers are allocated to the aircraft origin/destination. Mid points will therefore be understated and end points overstated. This affects inbound flights more than outbound.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what options are available to the Child Support Agency in cases where an absent parent refuses to complete and return an assessment form. [9542]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
  272
  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Dennis Canavan, dated 21 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessment forms.
  If the absent parent (AP) fails to return a completed Maintenance Enquiry Form (MEF) or Review Form (RF) within 14 days of it being issued, the Agency will contact the AP to establish the reasons for non-completion and, where there are no issues regarding paternity or CSA jurisdiction, will advise the AP on completion of the form and where necessary allow the AP extra time to complete and return the form.
  If, despite this action, a completed MEF is not returned the options available to the Child Support Office (CSO) depend upon what is known of the AP's circumstances:

  a) If nothing is known of the AP's circumstances or they are known to have income and the CSO considers that the AP is deliberately not co-operating in providing the required evidence he will consider the imposition of an interim maintenance assessment (Category A) calculated at 1.5 times the Maintenance Requirement. If necessary an IMA can be collected by a Deduction from Earning Order (DEO) direct from the absent parent's salary. Imposing a DEO in these circumstances often results in the completed MEF being returned and for many months we have placed increased emphasis on this work.

  b) If the AP has a Partner and is not able to provide evidence of the Partner's income but provides all other required evidence the CSO can consider imposing an interim maintenance assessment (Category B) based solely on the Absent Parent's circumstances and making no allowance for their Partner.

  c) If the AP is self-employed and is having genuine difficulty in supplying details of their earnings the CSO can consider imposing an interim maintenance assessment (Category C) at a standard rate (currently £30). A lower amount can be considered at the AP's request and after consultation with the parent with care. If the AP fails to make IMA payments and does not come to an arrears agreement, the Agency will consider enforcement action to recover those arrears. Such action commences by obtaining a liability order in a Magistrates' Court and leads to committal proceedings as a last resort.

  d) If the AP is receiving Income Support the CSO can request the Benefits Agency to make a standard deduction (currently £2.35) from the AP's Income Support as a contribution to maintenance.

  Under current legislation if a completed Review Form is not returned the CSO is unable to impose an interim maintenance assessment. The CSOs only option is to review the current MA. This involves the CSO in considering the evidences already held to see if they are still reasonable and updating those evidences independently where possible, using the powers available to the Secretary of State.
  Revised legislation from 22 January 1996 will allow the CSO to consider the imposition of an interim maintenance assessment in the same way as when a completed MEF has been returned.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to replace the Child Support Agency computer system. [10508]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency computer system.

  273
  As part of its normal management of business operations the Child Support Agency regularly reviews the role of the information systems it utilises. This review includes ongoing assessment of the cost effectiveness of the system and cost of change.
  There are no current plans to replace the Child Support Computer System.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury receives a prompt response to all outstanding inquiries about Child Support Agency cases in the Dewsbury constituency that she has raised with the CSA chief executive. [11246]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 21 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about constituency cases you have raised with my office.
  I have looked into the three cases you have written to me about, and I will write to you shortly on each individual case.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the number of complaints filed in relation to the operation of the Child Support Agency(a) with Ministers and (b) the agency itself in each quarter since the agency was set up. [9535]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 21 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about complaints received in relation to the Child Support Agency.
  It should be noted at the outset that complaints are not raised exclusively in relation to CSA administration. Many concern the financial amounts as calculated under the formula set by the Child Support Act.
  We do not have a detailed breakdown of the categories of Ministerial correspondence, and are therefore unable to provide information relating specifically to complaints filed with Ministers. Figures for all Ministerial and Chief Executive correspondence, including complaints, are as follows:

  Ministerial

  Chief executive

  1993–94

  Total

  16,275

  —

  1994–95

  Quarter 1

  317

  2,221

  Quarter 2

  325

  1,917

  Quarter 3

  368

  2,343

  Quarter 4

  339

  2,205

  Total

  1,349

  8,686

  1995–96

  Quarter 1

  346

  2,127

  Quarter 2

  294

  2,041

  Total

  640

  4,168

  1This is an aggregate figure; separate details for Ministerial and Chief Executive correspondence are not available for 1993–94.

  274

  Statistics are collated for complaints handled by the Agency as a whole, and the details from inception are as follows:

  Number

  1993–94

  Total

  110,886

  1994–95

  Quarter 1

  5,330

  Quarter 2

  5,659

  Quarter 3

  8,107

  Quarter 4

  8.552

  Total

  27,648

  1995–96

  Quarter 1

  8,639

  Quarter 2

  8,086

  Total

  16,725

  1A quarterly breakdown for 1993–94 is not available.

  As details for December 1995 are not yet published, we are unable to provide information for the third quarter of 1995/96.

  I hope this is helpful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Children Order
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account will be taken of spending levels in England in the Children Order. [10314]

  Mr. Moss
  The level of spending on personal social services for children following introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 will reflect local circumstances and priorities in Northern Ireland. No meaningful comparison can be made with the spending levels of local authorities in England.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much additional money will be spent in implementing the Children Order in Northern Ireland; [10312]

  (2) what impact the saving requirement that boards are expected to make will have on the amount available to service the requirements of the Children Order. [10313]

  Mr. Moss
  Before taking final decisions on allocations to boards and efficiency savings targets for 1996–97, no comment can be made on the amount available to service the requirements of the Children Order.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the change in the number of psychiatric beds available in each of the Northern Ireland health boards since 1991. [10568]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  Board area

  1990–91

  1994–95

  Eastern

  1,401

  901

  Northern

  555

  419

  Southern

  465

  320

  Western

  1,113

  499

  Magherafelt Bypass
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of the Environment intends to commence the Magherafelt bypass. [10579]

  Mr. Moss
  A scheme to by-pass Magherafelt is included in the Department's long-term programme of major road works, although its precise timing will be subject to future funding levels.

  Education Building Programme
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the planned building programme budget for education will be spent directly on construction in Mid-Ulster 1996–97; and what were the figures for 1995–96. [10571]

  Mr. Ancram
  Expenditure of £160,000 in 1995–96 and £310,000 in 1996–97, has been earmarked for construction work in Mid-Ulster within the major works building programme for the education service.

  Vegetable Industry, Ards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of damage to the vegetable industry in the borough of Ards resulting from the recent severe weather conditions. [10305]

  Mr. Ancram
  Damage to the vegetable industry in the borough of Ards as a consequence of recent adverse weather conditions has been variable. The degree of damage varied from farm to farm, the stage of growth and the crop and variety grown.

  Mid Ulster hospital

  South Tyrone hospital

  Tyrone County hospital

  Erne hospital

  Ordinary admissions

  1993–94

  7,226

  10,252

  8,820

  8,258

  1994–95

  8,183

  10,363

  8,332

  8,419

  Day cases

  1993–94

  1,604

  2,403

  1,430

  906

  1994–95

  1,787

  2,757

  1,824

  1,022

  Total attendances at consultant outpatient clinics

  1993–94

  25,575

  33,280

  34,648

  31,850

  1994–95

  24,442

  34,339

  33,700

  31,792

  Total attendances at accident and emergency departments

  1993–94

  16,416

  20,617

  18,763

  14,964

  1994–95

  18,416

  21,100

  21,418

  14,491

  Sean Quinn Cement Ltd.
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government grants have been received by Sean Quinn Cement Ltd. in each of the last 10 years. [10632]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1991–92, £1,800 was paid to Sean Quinn Cement Ltd. in respect of assistance under the Industrial Development Board's marketing development grant scheme. No other grants were paid to this company over the past 10 years.
  276
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he had made of the size and quality of the current year's vegetable crop in the borough of Ards relative to those of recent years; what plans he has to refer the matter to the Commission of the European Communities for financial assistance; and if he will make a statement. [10306]

  Mr. Ancram
  Vegetable quality in 1995, before the adverse weather spell, had been very good. Supplies were below 1994 levels, which was an abnormally good year. The harsh weather has, however, caused quality to deteriorate, depending on the crop grown, and has resulted in reduced supplies of some locally produced vegetables.

  There are no plans to refer the matter to the EC Commission for financial assistance.

  Alcohol-related Problems
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the NHS will spend this year on treatment for alcohol-related problems, and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last two years. [10629]

  Mr. Moss
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Patient Statistics
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients were treated at the(a) Mid Ulster hospital, (b) South Tyrone hospital, (c) Tyrone County hospital and (d) Erne hospital during the last two years. [10570]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Anti-social Tenants
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce new measures to deal with(a) anti-social tenants in the public sector, (b) anti-social tenants in the private sector and (c) anti-social neighbours in the owner-occupied sector of housing in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [10578]

  Mr. Moss
  The need for new measures to deal with anti-social tenants in the public sector will be considered
  277
  as part of the housing policy review in Northern Ireland, the consultation stage of which expires on 31 March 1996. There are no plans at present to introduce new measures to deal with anti-social tenants in the private sector or anti-social neighbours in the owner-occupied sector.

  Job Creation
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what jobs have been announced by the Department of Economic Development since the ceasefire in each of the 17 Ulster constituencies. [10574]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Industrial Development Board has made a series of job announcements since the terrorist ceasefires. Details are as follows:

  Jobs announced by IDB since 1 September 1994, by Parliamentary Constituency

  Constitueocy

  Jobs

  East Antrim

  409

  North Antrim

  —

  South Antrim

  575

  Belfast East

  —

  Belfast North

  106

  Belfast South

  20

  Belfast West

  498

  North Down

  119

  South Down

  —

  Farmanagh and South Tyrone

  667

  Foyle

  860

  Lagan Valley

  1,581

  East Londonderry

  81

  Mid Ulster

  218

  Newry and Armagh

  771

  Strangford

  —

  Upper Bann

  1,111

  Total

  7,016

  An additional 316 jobs have been announced but no definite location is yet known.

  Heath Services (Privatisation)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has further to involve the private sector in the provision of health services. [10569]

  Mr. Moss
  The provision of health services is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services and will remain so. The private sector routinely provides goods and services to support care and treatment, and supplies necessary capital works and equipment. In addition the provision of care and treatment may be procured on a patient's behalf from private or voluntary providers, where this represents the most economical, efficient and effective solution. With regard to any extension of private sector involvement, there are no plans which have this as their objective. It may arise indirectly as part of the Government's private finance initiative; from the White Paper, "Competing for Quality"; or from purchasing decisions by health boards or GP fundholders in light of the patient's need for the best available treatment.

  Flooding, Campsie
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of the 278
  Environment plans to install a new pump to prevent flooding at Campsie, Omagh. [10576]

  Mr. Moss
  When I wrote to the hon. Member on 10 December 1995 I informed him that it was intended to bring forward work on the scheme to the financial year 1997–98. I am now pleased to inform him that the Water Executive has just recently reviewed priorities in its capital works programme and it is possible to advance the work further. This is now scheduled to commence in the autumn of 1996.

  Health Boards (Finance)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the savings proposed by his Department in each of the Northern Ireland health board areas in 1996–97. [10567]

  Mr. Moss
  The 1995 survey outcome provides for a small increase of 0.22 per cent. in real terms in the overall resources for the health and personnel Social Services in 1996–97. When one excludes the cost of drugs, the resources available to health and social services boards for hospital, community health and personal social services is 1.03 per cent. less than 1995–96 in real terms. In addition the survey outcome assumes 3 per cent. cash releasing efficiency savings. I have arranged to meet health and social services board chairmen and the local branch of the NHS Trust Federation before taking final decisions on allocations to boards for 1996–97.

  Pre-school Education
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by board the number of four-year-olds participating in pre-school education in Northern Ireland. [10563]

  Mr. Ancram
  Available statistics relate to pupils' age at 1 July. Measured at that date, there are no four-year-olds participating in pre-school education as four is the compulsory school age in Northern Ireland.

  Housing Executive
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when funds will he made available to clear the backlog of grant applications and awards by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [10580]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The chief executive has advised me that, in response to the very high demand for grant aid for home improvements, the budget for 1995–96 has been increased by £10 million over the previous year to some £44 million. These substantial resources should enable further in-roads to be made in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland.

  Birth Statistics
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many babies were born at the maternity units at(a) Erne hospital, (b) South Tyrone hospital and (c) Mid Ulster hospital during the past three years. [10572]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:
  279

  Erne hospital

  South Tyrone hospital

  Mid Ulster hospital

  Live births

  1992–93

  737

  957

  788

  1993–94

  790

  890

  763

  1994–95

  911

  1,066

  765

  Still births

  1992–93

  3

  1

  5

  1993–94

  3

  3

  4

  1994–95

  7

  7

  4

  Totals

  1992–93

  740

  958

  793

  1993–94

  793

  893

  767

  1994–95

  918

  1,073

  769

  Owner Occupation
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest estimates of the level of owner occupation in Northern Ireland and what were the figures for the previous three years. [10582]

  Mr. Moss
  The estimated level of owner occupation expressed as a percentage of the total occupied housing stock in Northern Ireland is:

  1994: 67 per cent.

  1993: 67 per cent.

  1992: 66 per cent.

  1991: 66 per cent.

  Planning (Belfast)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to address the future planning of the Belfast city region; and if he will make a statement. [12067]

  Mr. Moss
  Recent studies by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) of urban regeneration, housing and transportation have pointed up the need for a review of strategic planning issues in the Belfast city region. I propose, therefore, to initiate debate about the future of Belfast and its environs and to help shape that debate I have today launched a discussion paper entitled, "The Belfast City Region: Towards and Beyond the Millennium". Copies of the discussion paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of ex-service(a) men and (b) women resident in Northern Ireland and ex-members (i) male and (ii) female of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve suffering from combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder distinguishing between service inside and outside Northern Ireland. [10541]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The first part of the question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  In the inclusive period 1987 to 1995, 37—33 male and four female—RUC officers were medically retired from the RUC/RUC Reserve as a result of suffering post-traumatic stress disorder.
  280
  The term "combat-induced" is not a recognised medical definition and therefore no distinction can be made on this.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what provision is made by his department for the treatment of combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder; [10540]

  (2) what provision is made by his Department for respite care for sufferers of combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. [10543]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Health and social services boards in Northern Ireland provide a comprehensive range of mental health services and social services, including respite care, to meet the needs of all mentally ill people, including those suffering from combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research is undertaken by his Department(a) directly and (b) indirectly by financing research elsewhere into combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder; and if he will indicate for (b) the organisations involved and the total funding provided. [10542]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: No research into combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder is being funded directly or indirectly by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland at present. The Department has not received any applications for support of research into combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder in recent years.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Funding (Wolverhampton)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received from schools in Wolverhampton regarding the local authority finance settlement for 1996–97. [9434]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from schools in Wolverhampton about funding for 1996–97.

  Nursery School Vouchers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she will take to ensure that a nursery place in a state school will be available to every holder of a nursery voucher who wants one. [9435]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of additional places created through the nursery voucher scheme in the maintained sector will depend on individual local education authority decisions influenced by parental choice.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the statistics for youth unemployment in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European Union countries. [9436]
  281
  Mr. Paice
  On internationally comparable figures the International Labour Organisation unemployment rate in November 1995 for those aged under 25 was 13.4 per cent. This is among the lowest in the European Union, and almost 7 percentage points below the EU average.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of youth unemployment. [9440]

  Mr. Paice
  We will continue with the economic and employment policies that have reduced unemployment among young people under 25 by 225,000 since October 1992 and to less than half the rate in France or Spain where a minimum wage and other regulations discourage employment of young people.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors led her to delay the introduction of subsidised private sector student loans. [9437]

  Mr. Forth
  Following consultation with the major banks and building societies, we decided to defer implementation of the new arrangements until 1997 to allow time for the development of new systems.

  School Standards
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when a Minister in her Department last met Sir Geoffrey Holland, vice-chancellor of Exeter university, to discuss his views on the outputs of the school system. [9438]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend discussed these issues with Sir Geoffrey Holland earlier this month at the annual conference of the Council of Local Education Authorities, where issues of school standards were at the top of the agenda.

  Education Budget (Lancashire)
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from Lancashire county council about its education budget settlement. [9439]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received no representation from Lancashire county council about its education budget for 1996–97.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the employment implications for Britain of agreeing to the social chapter. [9441]

  Mr. Forth
  The social chapter would have damaged the United Kingdom's competitiveness and destroyed jobs. That is why we could not, and will not, accept it.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met 282
  representatives of the training and enterprise councils to discuss their budgets. [9443]

  Mr. Paice
  I regularly meet TEC representatives to discuss a wide range of topics including TEC budgets.

  Schools (London)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made since the Greenwich judgment of the percentage of children who attend schools in London boroughs outside the one in which they reside. [9444]

  Mrs. Gillan
  According to information provided by local education authorities in January 1994, approximately 11 per cent. of children of compulsory school age were then attending schools outside the London borough in which they resided.

  Single-sex Grammer Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many single-sex grammar schools there are in England. [9445]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There are at present 116 single-sex maintained grammar schools in England.

  Employment Opportunities (Workington)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce new measures for the creation of employment opportunities for the Workington travel-to-work area. [9446]

  Mr. Forth
  New jobs are being created all the time. The latest labour force survey shows that the number of people in employment in Great Britain rose by over 300,000 in the year summer 1994 to summer 1995.

  The priority for the Department is to help unemployed people get these jobs. In November, I announced a programme of 1.5 million opportunities to do that, which has more than doubled the number of places on 1-2-1, a programme of intensive help tailored to the needs of the individual jobseeker.

  Education Budget (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the standard education spending assessment for Birmingham local education authority in 1996–97; and what was Birmingham's budget for education in 1995–96. [9448]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Birmingham's provisional education standard spending assessment for 1996–97 is £448.7 million, an increase of 5 per cent. This year Birmingham's education SSA is some £427 million, and its education budget is some £456 million.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children currently have assisted places. [9449]

  Mrs. Gillan
  About 30,200 children are now estimated to hold assisted places at schools in England in the current academic year 1995–96.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have balloted in the last six months to become grant-maintained. [9450]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Forty-nine schools in England have balloted parents on the question of grant-maintained status since 1 July 1995.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many men were in full-time employment in(a) 1979 and (b) 1995 or the most recent year for which figures are available. [9451]

  Mr. Forth
  In June 1979 there were 14,213,000 men in full-time employment in Great Britain, compared with 12,037,000 in June 1995.

  National Curriculum
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on quality and the diversity of the curriculum in school education. [9452]

  Mr. Paice
  The national curriculum aims to ensure that all pupils at maintained schools benefit from a broad and balanced curriculum. The Office for Standards in Education has confirmed that it is already proving to be a successful vehicle for raising standards in school education. The revised national curriculum, introduced in August 1995, removed overload and gave teachers in primary and secondary schools more time to use at their discretion. Diversity is further guaranteed by the ability to choose between different elements of programmes of study.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to consult on what changes are desired to the national curriculum during the moratorium period. [11131]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The revised national curriculum was introduced into schools only last term and is intended to take them into the next century without further major change. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has already begun to monitor the revised national curriculum and will, in due course, consider the need for further revision.

  Older Workers
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve employment opportunities for older workers. [9453]

  Mr. Forth
  We will continue our successful economic policies which produced growth in jobs for all age groups. And we will pursue the campaign for older workers which seeks to persuade employers to eliminate age discrimination from their employment and recruitment practices.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and which schools for 284
  educationally disadvantaged pupils in England are able to offer a full programme of GNVQ foundation courses for key stage 4 pupils provided by staff all qualified to TDLB—Training Development Lead Body—D32/33 or D34. [10884]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not held centrally.

  Education and Employment Departments (Merger Costs)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total costs that will be incurred by her Department in amending stationery as a result of the merger of the Departments of Education and of Employment, the costs of new signs on buildings; and what other costs have been identified to her Department as a result of the merger of the Education and the Employment Departments. [11101]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total cost for printing new stationery and production of new signage following the adoption of the merged Department's corporate identity is some £33,000. An estimated additional £57,000 has been incurred in developing the design of the identity and in the associated cost of its implementation throughout the Department, including production of a detailed set of guidelines. There have been significant savings elsewhere as a consequence of the merger.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost to her Department of producing its new logo; which company produced the logo; and what was the cost to her Department of this contract. [11106]

  Mr. Squire
  The design of the new logo and corporate identify for the Department for Education and Employment cost £15,000. The design work was carried out by the Central Office of Information after winning a free six-way creative pitch. The total cost of the contract, covering all aspects of design, production of all materials needed for the new Department and the production of a guidelines document is estimated at £90,000–this includes the original design cost of £15,000.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have applied for assistance through the access to work scheme over each of the last 12 months; and how many of these applicants have received assistance. [11465]

  Mr. Forth
  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 Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the monthly number of Access to Work applicants.
  The attached table shows the number of people accepted for Access to Work support in each month since December 1994. We do not collect information centrally about the numbers of people who apply for support but are not eligible.
  I hope this is helpful.
  285

  Access to work beneficiaries: December 1994 to November 1995

  Month

  Beneficiaries

  1994

  December

  622

  1995

  January

  785

  February

  830

  March

  868

  April/May1

  1,058

  June

  929

  July

  934

  August

  854

  September

  896

  October

  794

  November

  866

  1New procedures for recording information were introduced during April. The first count covered the period from 1 April to 31 May 1995.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects the review of access to work to be completed; and when the information from that review will be made available. [11466]

  Mr. Forth
  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 Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Access to Work review.
  The review of Access to Work is an internal exercise carried out by the Employment Service. A report of the review will soon be sent to the Minister of State and he has already announced that he will discuss the operation of the programme in 1996/97 with the principal organisations concerned before any recommendations are implemented.
  The Employment Service commissioned research from Social Community Planning Research to feed into the review. That research is complete and we intend to publish it during February.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new information is being collected by her officials in the current survey into the levels of provision of information technology in schools. [11129]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some questions have been updated in the survey to be carried out in March 1996 to reflect the changing provision of information technology in schools resulting from new technology developments. No new categories of information are involved.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authority advisory information technology centres there were in each year since 1991. [11113]

  Mr. Squire
  The information is not held centrally. It is a matter for individual local education authorities to decide how to provide IT support arrangements in the light of demand from schools. The Department's statistical bulletin "Survey of Information Technology in Schools", issue No. 3/95, ISSN 0142-5013, gives information on sources of technical support.
  286
  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of teachers in the current work force have received some formal training in information technology. [11116]

  Mr. Squire
  A sample survey of information technology provision in schools carried out by the Department in 1994 showed that the proportion of teachers who had received some training in information technology was 94 per cent. in primary schools, 86 per cent. in secondary schools and 92 per cent. in special schools.

  The ability to make constructive use of IT is among the competencies now required of all newly qualified teachers.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the current survey by her Department into the level of provision of information technology in schools. [11128]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department will be carrying out a further survey of information technology provision in a representative sample of schools in England in March 1996. The results of the survey should be available around the end of the year.

  Education Multi-media Industry
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to represent the views of the United Kingdom education multi-media industry in the European Commission. [11130]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are maintaining dialogue with the Commission and with relevant interests, including the British Educational Suppliers Association. Most recently, this has involved discussion of work by the European Commission's task force on multi-media educational software. UK interests will be represented in formal discussions within the Council of Ministers later this year.

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has received from the Isle of Wight education authority for bids under the schools renewal challenge fund for capital projects involving renewal, repair, replacement or improvement of the island's school capital stock. [11151]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Local education authorities have not yet had the opportunity to bid for support from the schools renewal challenge fund, which we propose should operate in the 1996–97 financial year.

  School Budgets (Manchester and Trafford)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the levels of capital funding requested and capital spending allowed for school buildings in 1996–97 to the city of Manchester and the borough of Trafford. [9428]
  287
  Mrs. Gillan
  The annual capital guidelines for capital work in schools for the city of Manchester and the borough of Trafford in 1996–97 are £6.378 million and £2.153 million respectively. These figures represent 12.52 per cent. and 30.75 per cent. respectively of the amounts bid for, compared with the national average of 23 per cent. Grants for building work at voluntary aided schools to the value of £3.463 million in Manchester and £285,000 in Trafford were also approved in the recent capital round.

  ACGs do not constitute limits on capital spending by these authorities on their schools. Local education authorities can, and do, supplement their borrowing from other sources, including capital receipts and revenue budgets.

  Violent Pupils
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to issue guidelines in respect of the protection of head teachers and teachers from violent pupils. [9773]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The working group established by my right hon. Friend following the tragic murder of Philip Lawrence is considering urgently what more should be done to improve security in and around schools. Measures to protect school staff against violence —wherever it comes from—are a vital element in that work. DFEE circular 9/94, "The Education of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties", already contains advice to schools on the physical containment of pupils, where this is necessary to prevent them causing harm to themselves or to others.

  National Vocational Qualifications (L
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those aged 18 to 21 years have achieved NVQ level 2 or its equivalent; and what are the equivalent figures for(a) Germany and (b) Japan. [10165]

  Mr. Paice
  The latest estimate for the proportion of 18 to 21-year-olds in the United Kingdom who have achieved at least national vocational qualification level 2 or equivalent is 63 per cent. This figure is taken from the summer 1995 labour force survey.

  Comparable information for Germany and Japan is not available.

  GCSE average point scores by each twentieth of the 15-year-olds 1994–95 provisional figures

  Cumulative totals

  All schools1 Grant maintained

  Independent

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  0.000

  28,910

  0

  0.218

  4,775

  1,042

  0.000

  2,374

  0

  0.413

  57,819

  23,892

  3.751

  9,550

  35,821

  1.150

  4,749

  5463

  2.641

  86,729

  229,072

  7.301

  14,325

  104,589

  6.321

  7,123

  45,021

  5.249

  115,639

  607,042

  10.352

  19,100

  197,731

  12.915

  9,497

  122,650

  7.793

  144,549

  1,126,428

  13.001

  23,875

  310,409

  18.283

  11,871

  217,043

  10.177

  173,458

  1,765,351

  15.361

  28,649

  440,079

  22.581

  14,246

  321,682

  12.394

  202,368

  2508125

  17.494

  33,424

  584,714

  26.088

  16,620

  433,584

  14.475

  231,278

  3,347,636

  19.448

  38,199

  742,899

  29.053

  18,994

  551,824

  16.438

  260,187

  4,277,067

  21.282

  42,974

  914,568

  31.599

  21,368

  675,199

  18.306

  289.097

  5,

  23.008

  47,749

  1,098,614

  33.828

  23,743

  803,187

  20.096

  318,007

  6,

  24.650

  52524

  1,294,723

  35.804

  26,117

  935,103

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates he has made of the proportion of families in England that have state nursery education available to them in each education authority for children aged(a) three to four and (b) four to five years. [11087]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Information about pupils under five being taught in maintained nursery and primary schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1995 is contained in statistical bulletin 1/96 "Pupils Under Five Years of Age in Schools in England—January 1995", which is available in the Library.

  Job Insecurity
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to reduce levels of job insecurity. [9442]

  Mr. Forth
  Concerns about job insecurity will he reduced by sustainable economic growth, falling unemployment, and rising employment, which the Government's policies are achieving.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide the GCSE average point scores per pupil in 1995 for each individual 20th group, and also for the cumulative 20th group, of all 15-year-old pupils when ranked according to their average point scores, where A* = 7 for (a) all such pupils in England, (b) all such pupils of the local education authority maintained sector only, excluding those of grant-maintained schools, (c) all such pupils of the grant-maintained sector only, (d) all such pupils of the whole maintained sector only, excluding those of independent schools and (e) all such pupils of the independent sector only. [42202]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 8 November 1995]: The GCSE average point scores per pupil in 1995 for each individual 20th group, and also for the cumulative 20th groups of all 15-year-old pupils when ranked according to their average point scores where A* = 7 are shown in the following tables:
  289

  GCSE average point scores by each twentieth of the 15-year-olds 1994–95 provisional figures

  Cumulative totals

  All schools1 Grant maintained

  Independent

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  21.823

  346,916

  7,570,643

  26.228

  57,299

  1,502,835

  37.591

  28,491

  1,071,011

  23.496

  375,826

  8,830,343

  27.750

  62,074

  1,722,550

  39.212

  30,865

  1,210,267

  25.123

  404,736

  10,168,051

  29.228

  66,849

  1,953,858

  40.717

  33,240

  1,353,446

  26.716

  433,646

  11,585,492

  30.674

  71,624

  2,197,008

  42.109

  35,614

  1,499,672

  28.290

  462,555

  13,085,748

  32.100

  76,398

  2,452,391

  43.400

  37,988

  1,648,678

  29.854

  491,465

  14,672,377

  33.518

  81,173

  2,720,772

  44.624

  40,362

  1,801,098

  31.431

  520,375

  16,355,717

  34.953

  85,948

  3,004,113

  45.873

  42,737

  1,960,481

  33.036

  549,284

  18,146,009

  36.429

  90,723

  3,304,934

  47.112

  45,111

  2,125,259

  34.827

  578,194

  20,137,007

  38.102

  95,498

  3,638,642

  48.467

  47,485

  2,301,460

  1Includes LEA and grant-maintained schools, independent schools, hospital schools and pupil referral units.

  Maintained1

  LEA maintained

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  0.000

  26,416

  0

  0.000

  21,641

  0

  0.502

  52,832

  26,509

  0.221

  43,282

  9,569

  2.749

  79,248

  217,826

  2.111

  64,924

  137,027

  5.292

  105,664

  559,146

  4.474

  86,565

  387,315

  7.733

  132,081

  1,021,317

  6.818

  108,206

  737,741

  10.019

  158,497

  1,588,019

  9.047

  129,847

  1,174,775

  12.136

  184,913

  2,244,018

  11.134

  151,488

  1,686,656

  14.122

  211,329

  2,984,408

  13.099

  173,130

  2,267,840

  15.997

  237,745

  3,803,121

  14.962

  194,771

  2,914,229

  17.781

  264,161

  4,697,065

  16.740

  216,412

  3,622,833

  19.490

  290,577

  5,663,336

  18.447

  238,053

  4,391,259

  21.135

  316,993

  6,699,751

  20.094

  259,694

  5,218,197

  22.737

  343,409

  7,808,110

  21.699

  281,336

  6,104,623

  24.301

  369,825

  8,986,961

  23.269

  302,977

  7,050,001

  25.833

  396,242

  10,235,997

  24.810

  324,618

  8,053,922

  27.348

  422,658

  11,558,679

  26.336

  346,259

  9,119,118

  28.862

  449,074

  12,961,258

  27.861

  367,900

  10,250,138

  30.394

  475,490

  14,451,924

  29.404

  389,542

  11,454,202

  31.976

  501,906

  16,048,730

  31.003

  411,183

  12,747,745

  33.750

  528,322

  17,830,804

  32.790

  432,824

  14,192,162

  1Includes LEA and grant-maintained schools, independent schools, hospital schools and pupil referral units.

  GCSE average point scores by each twentieth of the 15-year-olds 1994–95 provisional figures

  Individual totals

  All schools1

  Grant maintained

  Independent

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  0.000

  28,910

  0

  0.218

  4,775

  1,042

  0.000

  2,374

  0

  0.826

  28,909

  23,892

  7.284

  4,775

  34,779

  2.300

  2,375

  5,463

  7.097

  28,910

  205,180

  14.402

  4,775

  68,768

  16.663

  2,374

  39,558

  13.074

  28,910

  377,970

  19.506

  4,775

  93,142

  32.700

  2,374

  77,629

  17.966

  28,910

  519,386

  23.597

  4,775

  112,678

  39.761

  2,374

  94,393

  22.101

  28,909

  638,923

  27.162

  4,774

  129,670

  44.059

  2,375

  104,639

  25.693

  28,910

  742,774

  30.290

  4,775

  144,635

  47.136

  2,374

  111,902

  29.039

  28,910

  839,511

  33.128

  4,775

  158,185

  49.806

  2,374

  118,240

  32.150

  28,909

  929,431

  35.952

  4,775

  171,669

  51.969

  2,374

  123,375

  35.110

  28,910

  1,015,023

  38.544

  4,775

  184,046

  53.890

  2,375

  127,988

  37.999

  28,910

  1,098,540

  41.070

  4,775

  196,109

  55.567

  2,374

  131,916

  40.818

  28,909

  1,180,013

  43.584

  4,775

  208,112

  57.249

  2,374

  135,908

  43.573

  28,910

  1,259,700

  46.014

  4,775

  219,715

  58.659

  2,374

  139,256

  46.271

  28,910

  1,337,708

  48.441

  4,775

  231,308

  60.286

  2,375

  143,179

  49.029

  28,910

  1,417,441

  50.921

  4,775

  243,150

  61.595

  2,374

  146,226

  51.896

  28,909

  1,500,256

  53.495

  4,774

  255,383

  62.766

  2,374

  149,006

  54.882

  28,910

  1,586,629

  56.205

  4,775

  268,381

  64.204

  2,374

  152,420

  58.227

  28,910

  1,683,340

  59.338

  4,775

  283,341

  67.109

  2,375

  159,383

  61.929

  28,909

  1,790,292

  62.999

  4,775

  300,821

  69.409

  2,374

  164,778

  68.869

  28,910

  1,990,998

  69.886

  4,775

  333,708

  74.221

  2,374

  176,201

  1Includes LEA and grant-maintained schools, independent schools, hospital schools and pupil referral units.

  290 291

  Individual totals

  Maintained1

  LEA maintained

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  Average GCSE points

  Number 15-year-olds

  Total point score

  0.000

  26,416

  0

  0.000

  21,641

  0

  1.004

  26.416

  26,509

  0.442

  21,641

  9,569

  7.242

  26,416

  191,317

  5.889

  21,642

  127,458

  12.921

  26416

  341,320

  11,565

  21,641

  250288

  17.495

  26,417

  462,171

  16.193

  21,641

  350,426

  21.453

  26,416

  566,702

  20.195

  21,641

  437,034

  24,833

  26,416

  655,999

  23.653

  21,641

  511881

  28.028

  26,416

  740,390

  26.854

  21,642

  581,184

  30.993

  26,416

  818,713

  29.869

  21,641

  646,389

  33.841

  26,416

  893,944

  32.744

  21,641

  708,604

  36.579

  26,416

  966,271

  35.508

  21,641

  768,426

  39.234

  26,416

  1,036,415

  38.212

  21,641

  826,938

  41.958

  26,416

  1,108,359

  40.959

  21,642

  886,426

  44.626

  26,416

  1,178,851

  43.685

  21,641

  945,378

  47.282

  26,417

  1,249,036

  46.390

  21,641

  1,003,921

  50.071

  26,416

  1,322,682

  49.221

  21,641

  1,065,196

  53.096

  26,416

  1,402,579

  52.263

  21,641

  1,131,020

  56.430

  26,416

  1,490,666

  55.636

  21,642

  1,204,064

  60.448

  26,416

  1,596,806

  59.773

  21,641

  1,293,543

  67.462

  26,416

  1,782,074

  66.744

  21,641

  1,444,417

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide the average GCSE point scores, where A* = 7, per 15-year-old pupil by local education authority and for 1995, and also by gender in each case for (a) the local education authority maintained sector only, (b) the grant-maintained sector only and (c) the whole maintained sector; and if he will state the averages in each case for each standard Department for Education region. [42203]

  Average GCSE point scores (based on A* equals 7)

  LEA maintained

  Grant maintained

  Maintained sector

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  25.8

  32.9

  29.8

  42.3

  41.2

  41.5

  28.6

  35.0

  32.3

  Greenwich

  26.3

  30.5

  28.4

  —

  —

  —

  26.3

  30.5

  28.4

  Hackney

  21.7

  28.8

  25.9

  —

  —

  —

  21.7

  28.8

  25.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16.9

  30.0

  24.3

  40.0

  0.0

  40.1

  24.1

  30.0

  26.9

  Islington

  20.2

  24.2

  21.9

  —

  —

  —

  20.2

  24.2

  21.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28.3

  30.6

  29.6

  50.6

  —

  50.6

  36.5

  30.6

  33.7

  Lambeth

  14.1

  26.1

  21.4

  29.0

  32.5

  30.9

  22.9

  29.3

  26.5

  Lewisham

  24.8

  30.6

  27.6

  —

  —

  —

  24.8

  30.6

  27.6

  Southwark

  17.4

  26.9

  22.0

  30.5

  34.8

  32.7

  20.6

  28.9

  24.7

  Tower Hamlets

  21.2

  26.7

  23.8

  31.5

  32.2

  31.8

  21.9

  27.1

  24.4

  Wandsworth

  20.7

  19.4

  20.3

  29.7

  34.3

  32.3

  25.5

  31.3

  28.2

  Westminster

  22.8

  30.6

  26.9

  —

  —

  —

  22.8

  30.6

  26.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  26.2

  30.1

  28.1

  —

  —

  —

  26.2

  30.1

  28.1

  Barnet

  30.2

  41.3

  36.8

  40.7

  45.5

  42.6

  36.7

  43.1

  39.8

  Bexley

  31.7

  38.3

  35.4

  37.1

  40.0

  37.9

  33.5

  38.5

  36.0

  Brent

  20.1

  30.4

  24.6

  30.4

  36.4

  33.4

  28.6

  35.5

  32.0

  Bromley

  28.2

  30.7

  29.8

  37.7

  42.5

  40.0

  36.3

  39.4

  37.8

  Croydon

  27.4

  33.3

  30.3

  31.4

  39.9

  35.7

  29.2

  36.3

  32.7

  Ealing

  25.5

  33.6

  29.4

  28.5

  36.0

  32.7

  26.6

  34.7

  30.8

  Enfield

  26.2

  34.6

  31.0

  35.9

  38.6

  36.7

  30.3

  35.3

  32.7

  Haringey

  21.9

  28.6

  25.1

  —

  —

  —

  21.9

  28.6

  25.1

  Harrow

  35.8

  41.1

  38.5

  38.4

  —

  38.4

  36.1

  41.1

  38.5

  Havering

  31.7

  34.9

  33.1

  43.8

  45.4

  44.9

  33.3

  38.5

  35.9

  Hillingdon

  27.6

  31.4

  29.7

  31.4

  35.9

  33.7

  30.8

  35.1

  33.0

  Hounslow

  29.1

  35.6

  32.1

  38.1

  44.9

  41.5

  30.2

  37.0

  33.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  28.8

  43.5

  39.0

  45.0

  36.7

  43.1

  38.1

  42.5

  40.4

  Merton

  30.6

  32.5

  31.4

  —

  43.3

  43.3

  30.6

  35.3

  32.8

  Newham

  22.6

  27.9

  25.2

  23.0

  33.9

  28.7

  22.6

  28.1

  25.3

  Redbridge

  36.1

  38.5

  37.3

  34.0

  39.2

  36.8

  36.0

  38.5

  37.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  34.2

  39.8

  36.9

  —

  —

  —

  34.2

  39.8

  36.9

  Sutton

  24.9

  30.0

  27.7

  46.3

  50.5

  48.1

  38.0

  40.4

  39.1

  Waltham Forest

  25.1

  31.7

  28.4

  33.9

  42.6

  37.7

  26.8

  33.4

  30.0

  Birmingham

  23.4

  28.6

  25.9

  36.1

  38.8

  37.4

  26.3

  30.7

  28.5

  Coventry

  27.9

  33.5

  30.6

  —

  —

  —

  27.9

  33.5

  30.6

  292
  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 8 November 1995]: The average GCSE point scores, where A* = 7 per 15-year-old pupil by local education authority and for 1995, and also by gender in each case for (a) the local authority maintained sector only, (b) the grant-maintained sector only and (c) the whole maintained sector are shown in the following table. The averages for each standard Department for Education region are also shown at the end of the following table:
  293

  Average GCSE point scores (based on A* equals 7)

  LEA maintained

  Grant maintained

  Maintained sector

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Dudley

  30.3

  35.9

  33.1

  34.5

  37.4

  35.8

  31.4

  36.3

  33.8

  Sandwell

  25.4

  30.3

  27.8

  23.7

  26.6

  25.2

  25.3

  30.0

  27.6

  Solihull

  34.2

  39.4

  36.9

  —

  —

  —

  34.2

  39.4

  36.9

  Walsall

  22.1

  27.8

  24.9

  34.9

  39.1

  37.0

  26.5

  31.8

  29.1

  Wolverhampton

  26.6

  30.0

  28.2

  24.5

  37.9

  32.6

  26.4

  31.4

  28.9

  Knowsley

  21.7

  23.8

  22.8

  16.1

  23.5

  19.7

  21.3

  23.8

  22.5

  Liverpool

  21.7

  27.1

  24.4

  34.0

  36.1

  34.7

  23.2

  27.7

  25.4

  St. Helens

  29.6

  35.0

  32.1

  —

  —

  —

  29.6

  35.0

  32.1

  Sefton

  32.3

  37.8

  35.1

  —

  —

  —

  32.3

  37.8

  35.1

  Wirral

  28.2

  35.6

  32.1

  56.8

  49.8

  55.5

  33.8

  36.3

  35.0

  Bolton

  30.1

  35.2

  32.5

  37.1

  43.0

  40.1

  31.2

  36.6

  33.7

  Bury

  34.3

  38.1

  36.1

  —

  —

  —

  34.3

  38.1

  36.1

  Manchester

  21.5

  26.3

  23.8

  —

  —

  —

  21.5

  26.3

  23.8

  Oldham

  26.3

  32.9

  29.5

  —

  —

  —

  26.3

  32.9

  29.5

  Rochdale

  27.2

  31.8

  29.4

  32.2

  38.7

  35.4

  28.0

  33.0

  30.4

  Salford

  23.5

  28.1

  25.8

  39.0

  41.9

  40.4

  24.0

  28.5

  26.3

  Stockport

  33.3

  38.0

  35.5

  —

  —

  —

  33.3

  38.0

  35.5

  Tameside

  25.9

  32.1

  29.2

  36.0

  41.1

  37.6

  28.4

  33.2

  30.7

  Trafford

  34.4

  39.2

  36.9

  27.3

  31.1

  29.0

  32.5

  37.4

  35.0

  Wigan

  32.1

  38.3

  35.1

  —

  —

  —

  32.1

  38.3

  35.1

  Barnsley

  24.8

  30.8

  27.8

  —

  —

  —

  24.8

  30.8

  27.8

  Doncaster

  25.9

  30.1

  27.8

  43.1

  49.7

  46.3

  26.8

  31.2

  28.8

  Rotherham

  29.7

  34.4

  32.0

  —

  —

  —

  29.7

  34.4

  32.0

  Sheffield

  28.3

  32.6

  30.4

  37.5

  39.5

  38.6

  28.8

  33.1

  30.9

  Bradford

  24.0

  29.4

  26.6

  28.5

  33.9

  31.0

  24.9

  30.2

  27.4

  Calderdale

  22.3

  27.1

  24.5

  34.8

  39.5

  37.0

  28.7

  33.7

  31.1

  Kirklees

  28.3

  34.6

  31.4

  57.5

  53.8

  55.7

  29.0

  35.1

  31.9

  Leeds

  27.8

  33.2

  30.4

  35.9

  36.1

  36.0

  28.0

  33.3

  30.6

  Wakefield

  28.5

  33.8

  31.2

  —

  —

  —

  28.5

  33.8

  31.2

  Gateshead

  30.1

  33.6

  31.9

  —

  —

  —

  30.1

  33.6

  31.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  26.0

  27.8

  26.9

  —

  —

  —

  26.0

  27.8

  26.9

  North Tyneside

  30.9

  34.8

  32.8

  —

  —

  —

  30.9

  34.8

  32.8

  South Tyneside

  28.7

  34.5

  31.6

  —

  —

  —

  28.7

  34.5

  31.6

  Sunderland

  27.0

  32.9

  29.9

  —

  —

  —

  27.0

  32.9

  29.9

  Isles of Scilly

  38.6

  50.9

  46.2

  —

  —

  —

  38.6

  50.9

  46.2

  Avon

  31.5

  36.4

  33.9

  37.3

  41.1

  39.0

  31.7

  36.6

  34.1

  Bedfordshire

  32.1

  37.2

  34.6

  34.9

  40.1

  37.4

  32.9

  38.0

  35.4

  Berkshire

  33.2

  39.5

  36.3

  40.0

  39.5

  39.8

  34.6

  39.5

  37.0

  Buckinghamshire

  36.4

  41.2

  38.8

  37.1

  39.5

  38.3

  36.6

  40.7

  38.6

  Cambridgeshire

  33.3

  38.3

  35.8

  36.2

  39.1

  37.6

  34.3

  38.6

  36.4

  Cheshire

  34.1

  39.1

  36.6

  36.3

  41.3

  38.8

  34.2

  39.2

  36.7

  Cleveland

  28.3

  32.5

  30.4

  —

  —

  —

  28.3

  32.5

  30.4

  Cornwall

  34.9

  39.3

  37.1

  —

  —

  —

  34.9

  39.3

  37.1

  Cumbria

  30.4

  35.1

  32.7

  36.5

  41.3

  38.9

  32.6

  37.4

  35.0

  Derbyshire

  29.2

  34.3

  31.6

  34.5

  39.7

  37.0

  30.8

  35.9

  33.3

  Devon

  31.7

  38.3

  35.0

  43.4

  44.9

  43.9

  32.8

  38.6

  35.6

  Dorset

  35.3

  40.1

  37.5

  43.6

  46.7

  45.4

  37.0

  42.0

  39.4

  Durham

  28.5

  34.1

  31.2

  —

  —

  —

  28.5

  34.1

  31.2

  East Sussex

  33.1

  37.2

  35.1

  —

  —

  —

  33.1

  37.2

  35.1

  Essex

  28.1

  33.5

  30.8

  35.5

  40.8

  38.1

  33.2

  38.5

  35.8

  Gloucestershire

  32.1

  35.8

  34.0

  37.6

  42.1

  39.7

  35.9

  40.0

  37.9

  Hampshire

  33.9

  39.2

  36.5

  39.1

  45.2

  42.1

  34.9

  40.4

  37.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  32.5

  37.3

  34.9

  34.9

  40.1

  37.7

  32.7

  37.5

  35.1

  Hertfordshire

  32.6

  38.7

  35.6

  38.2

  42.8

  40.5

  34.6

  40.1

  37.3

  Humberside

  28.3

  32.9

  30.6

  —

  —

  —

  28.3

  32.9

  30.6

  Isle of Wight

  33.3

  35.9

  34.5

  —

  —

  —

  33.3

  35.9

  34.5

  Kent

  29.5

  35.4

  32.7

  34.2

  38.3

  36.0

  32.1

  36.7

  34.4

  Lancashire

  30.8

  35.4

  33.0

  46.9

  49.3

  48.1

  31.8

  36.3

  34.0

  Leicestershire

  30.3

  35.6

  32.9

  38.5

  41.9

  39.9

  30.4

  35.6

  33.0

  Lincolnshire

  28.1

  36.7

  32.8

  37.1

  38.0

  37.5

  32.7

  37.2

  35.0

  Norfolk

  31.2

  37.5

  34.3

  33.6

  38.8

  36.1

  31.8

  37.8

  34.8

  North Yorkshire

  36.1

  40.9

  38.5

  —

  —

  —

  36.1

  40.9

  38.5

  Northamptonshire

  32.5

  38.0

  35.3

  32.6

  35.2

  33.8

  32.6

  37.4

  35.0

  Northumberland

  33.2

  38.2

  35.7

  28.6

  35.8

  31.7

  33.0

  38.1

  35.5

  Nottinghamshire

  28.7

  33.2

  30.9

  26.1

  34.2

  30.0

  28.6

  33.2

  30.9

  Oxfordshire

  33.3

  39.4

  36.3

  —

  —

  —

  33.3

  39.4

  36.3

  Shropshire

  32.7

  38.9

  35.8

  37.0

  39.8

  38.3

  33.5

  39.1

  36.2

  Somerset

  34.5

  39.9

  37.2

  30.4

  44.5

  32.6

  34.4

  39.9

  37.1

  Staffordshire

  30.1

  35.2

  32.6

  32.1

  33.8

  33.0

  30.2

  35.1

  32.6

  Suffolk

  35.7

  40.7

  38.2

  —

  —

  —

  35.7

  40.7

  38.2

  294 295

  Average GCSE point scores (based on A* equals 7)

  LEA maintained

  Grant maintained

  Maintained sector

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Surrey

  34.3

  39.6

  36.9

  38.3

  43.1

  40.6

  35.6

  40.7

  38.1

  Warwickshire

  32.1

  36.8

  34.4

  32.8

  40.2

  37.0

  32.2

  37.5

  34.9

  West Sussex

  36.9

  42.1

  39.4

  —

  —

  —

  36.9

  42.1

  39.4

  Wiltshire

  33.2

  38.4

  35.8

  37.6

  43.4

  40.3

  35.0

  40.3

  37.6

  Total

  30.2

  35.5

  32.8

  36.2

  40.2

  38.1

  31.3

  36.3

  33.7

  Regions

  North

  29.1

  33.7

  31.3

  35.8

  40.9

  38.3

  29.5

  34.1

  31.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  38.7

  33.7

  31.1

  34.0

  38.4

  36.1

  29.0

  34.0

  31.4

  North-west

  29.5

  34.6

  32.0

  39.4

  41.6

  40.4

  30.2

  35.0

  32.5

  East Midlands

  29.8

  35.1

  32.4

  34.9

  38.0

  36.3

  30.8

  35.6

  33.1

  West Midlands

  28.9

  34.1

  31.5

  34.2

  38.1

  36.1

  29.7

  34.7

  32.1

  East Anglia

  33.5

  39.0

  36.2

  35.1

  39.0

  37.0

  33.8

  39.0

  36.4

  Greater London

  26.6

  32.9

  29.8

  35.8

  39.7

  37.6

  29.3

  34.7

  32.0

  South-east

  33.1

  38.5

  35.8

  36.2

  40.8

  38.4

  34.1

  39.2

  36.6

  South-west

  33.1

  38.3

  35.6

  39.0

  43.5

  41.1

  34.2

  39.3

  36.6

  Total

  30.2

  35.5

  32.8

  36.2

  40.2

  38.1

  31.3

  36.3

  33.7

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide for all 15-year-old pupils in(a) England, (b) the local education authority maintained, (c) grant-maintained and (d) independent sectors, on the same basis as in the annual school performance tables, and also by gender (i) their GCSE average point score where A* = 7 and where A* = 8 and (ii) the percentage achieving (1) at least five GCSEs at grades A* = C, (2) at least one GCSE at grade
  C or higher, (3) at least five GCSEs at grade G or higher and (4) at least one GCSE at grade G or higher. [42204]

  School performance tables 1995

  Average point score

  Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving

  A* = 7

  A* = 8

  5+ A* -C

  1+ A* -C

  5+ A* -G

  1+ A* -G

  (A) England

  Boys

  32.5

  32.7

  39.0

  63.5

  83.4

  90.7

  Girls

  37.3

  37.6

  48.1

  75.0

  88.1

  93.2

  Total

  34.8

  35.1

  43.5

  69.1

  85.7

  91.9

  (B) LEA maintained

  Boys

  30.2

  30.3

  33.6

  59.4

  82.2

  90.1

  Girls

  35.5

  35.7

  43.6

  72.1

  87.2

  92.5

  Total

  32.8

  33.0

  38.5

  65.7

  84.7

  91.3

  (C) Grant maintained

  Boys

  36.2

  36.4

  44.8

  71.0

  90.0

  95.3

  Girls

  40.2

  40.5

  53.0

  81.0

  92.5

  96.1

  Total

  38.1

  38.4

  48.7

  75.7

  91.2

  95.7

  (D) Independent

  Boys

  47.3

  48.2

  76.9

  87.9

  85.8

  90.7

  Girls

  49.8

  50.9

  83.1

  82.6

  89.7

  93.9

  Total

  48.5

  49.5

  79.9

  90.1

  87.8

  92.9

WALES

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action was taken by local authorities in Wales
  296
  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 8 November 1995]: The information for all 15-year-old pupils in (a) England,(b) the local education authority maintained, (c) grant-maintained and (d) independent sectors, on the same coverage as in the annual school performance tables, and also by gender (i) their GCSE average point score per pupil where A* = 7 and where A* = 8 and (ii) the percentage achieving (1) at least five GCSEs at grades A* = C, (2) at least one GCSE at grade C or higher, (3) at least five GCSEs at grade G or higher and (4) at least one GCSE at grade G or higher is shown in the following table:

  for those households accepted as homeless and in priority need by reason of old age in each quarter of 1993 and 1994 and in the first two quarters of 1995. [10263]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is provided in the following table.
  297

  Action taken by local authority for those households accepted as homeless in Wales, in priority need by reason of old age

  Number of cases

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Action taken by local authority

  January-March

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  April-June

  Enabled to stay in/return to previous accommodation

  16

  9

  17

  17

  13

  30

  28

  29

  24

  30

  Placed in ordinary local authority dwelling

  35

  36

  36

  30

  34

  21

  24

  25

  24

  18

  Placed in short life local authority dwelling

  2

  5

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Placed in new town dwelling

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Placed in housing association dwelling

  3

  1

  1

  3

  1

  8

  1

  4

  4

  8

  Placed in private rented dwelling

  2

  1

  1

  0

  6

  2

  2

  0

  1

  3

  Placed in bed and breakfast

  11

  5

  2

  2

  3

  4

  8

  1

  2

  3

  Placed in local authority hostel

  5

  5

  1

  5

  4

  13

  2

  4

  4

  5

  Placed in mobile home

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Placed with relative/friends

  5

  5

  2

  5

  8

  2

  4

  1

  5

  5

  Placed in women's refuge

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Case referred to another housing authority

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  2

  Case referred to a voluntary

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Given advice and appropriate assistance

  15

  12

  15

  12

  18

  8

  16

  13

  11

  6

  Total

  96

  80

  81

  78

  90

  91

  89

  78

  77

  82

  Local authority returns.

  Bryncoedifor-Dolgellau Road Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when it is expected that the Bryncoedifor-Dolgellau road improvement scheme will be commenced; and if he will make a statement. [10709]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Drws y Nant improvement on the A494 trunk road is programmed to start in 1997, subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many revocations of planning decisions his Department has made over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [10691]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local planning decisions his Department has called in during the last two years. [10720]

  Mr. Jones
  Ten.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department has issued to the shadow unitary authorities on consultations between planning
  298
  authorities and town and community councils; and if he will make a statement. [10676]

  Mr. Jones
  The Welsh Office issued guidance to the new local authorities on consultations with community councils in June 1995. The guidance indicates the subjects on which the new councils should normally consult community councils; local planning matters are among the subjects indicated.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals against decisions of local planning authorities there are currently pending. [10721]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Appeals under the Town and Country

  Planning Act 1990:

  Section 78

  292

  Section 137

  1

  Section 174

  114

  Section 195

  22

  Appeals under the Planning and Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990

  20

  Appeals under section 18 of the Land Compensation

  299

  Number

  Number Act 1961

  4

  Appeals under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulation 1992

  16

  Appeals under schedule 2 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991

  5

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently employed in the tourism industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [10728]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of employees employed in tourism-related industries in Wales was 71,000 in September 1993 according to the 1993 census of employment. Employment data at this level of industrial activity are collected only in the census of employment and 1993 is the latest year for which data are available. Tourism-related industries are those classified as such in table 1.14, "Labour Market Trends", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations his Department has received over the past year on the question of the rate of value added tax on tourism services; and if he will make a statement. [10729]

  Mr. Jones
  Seven.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the amount made available by the Welsh Office for capital expenditure on local authority needs in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97. [10038]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The total of credit approvals and grant to local authorities, announced prior to the start of each financial year, is given in the following table.

  Local authority capital provision

  £million

  Cash prices

  Constant 1994–95

  prices

  1990–91

  414.3

  480.3

  1991–92

  464.1

  506.4

  1992–93

  536.3

  562.3

  1993–94

  483.5

  492.6

  1994–95

  503.0

  503.0

  1995–96

  525.6

  511.5

  1996–97

  508.5

  481.7

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the provision made for local authority capital programmes as (i) grant and (ii) a right to borrow, in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97. [10039]
  300
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: Information for 1990–91 to 1995–96 is given in the following table. Figures for 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Available resources for local authority capital programmes1

  £ million

  Constant

  Cash prices

  1994–95 prices

  Grant2

  Right to borrow3

  Grant2

  Right to borrow3

  1990–91

  155.3

  283.3

  180.1

  328.4

  1991–92

  213.6

  313.7

  233.1

  342.3

  1992–93

  274.2

  327.3

  287.5

  343.2

  1993–94

  266.5

  299.5

  271.5

  305.2

  1994–95

  282.6

  354.7

  282.6

  354.7

  1995–96

  309.0

  348.0

  300.8

  338.7

  1 As reported by local authorities. Includes Home Office provision.

  2 Excludes European Community capital grant used to repay debt. Includes capital grants from non-departmental public bodies and contributions from private developers.

  3 Includes basic and supplementary credit approvals issued to local authorities.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the past 12 months on the subject of the amalgamation of Welsh fire brigades. [10722]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have received 30 representations about the reorganisation of the fire brigades in Wales over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the past 12 months in favour of amalgamation of Welsh fire brigades; and if he will make a statement. [10693]

  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have received two representations in favour of the reorganisation of the fire brigades in Wales over the past 12 months.

  A470 Improvement Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work will commence on the A470 road improvement scheme between Blaenau Ffestiniog and Betws-y-Coed. [10706]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Work started in August 1995 on stage 1 of the scheme, the length between Cancoed and Minffordd. A public inquiry will be held into the draft orders for the next stage, Dolwyddelan to Pont yr Afanc, this April. Subject to the satisfactory outcome of the statutory procedures, it is expected that works on this stage will commence in early 1997.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest there were in Wales in(a) 1990, (b) 1992 and (c) 1994. [10698]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 1990: 769

  (b) 1992: 841

  (c) 1994: 890

  301
  Mr. LIwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [10701]

  Mr. Jones
  There are 907.

  Sheep Quota Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations his Department has received in the past 12 months on the current operation of the sheep quota scheme; and if he will make a statement. [10678]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has received a number of letters on general quota issues from individuals and representative organisations; and many approaches from individual producers, the farming unions, and members about the effect of the quota scheme in particular cases.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many Welsh beaches currently display the EC blue flag; [10699]
  302
  (2) how many Welsh beaches were awarded the EC blue flag in (a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, and (e) 1994; and if he will make a statement. [10697]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  1990: 1

  1991: 3

  1992: 2

  1993: 3

  1994: 2

  1995: 2

  M48 (Signs)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that adequate signposts are in place for the renumbered M48 before the opening of the second Severn crossing. [10780]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In liaison with the Highways Agency, my Department will ensure that appropriate signing is in place for the new motorway links to the second Severn crossing and the renumbered M48 before the crossing is opened to traffic.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Mathematics and Science: Teacher Recruitment
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to deal with the shortage of teachers of mathematics and science.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, there is no overall shortage of teachers in these subjects, nor within teaching nationally. Vacancy rates are at an all-time low. However, mathematics and science are priority subjects for the teacher recruitment work of the Teacher Training Agency, in recognition of the greater difficulty in attracting teacher training students in these subjects and the planned growth in intakes over the next few years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is indeed a strange Answer considering that the Teacher Training Agency has recently stated that there is a fall of 21 per cent. in the number of graduates applying for the teaching of mathematics and 41 per cent. fewer for the teaching of physics. Despite what the Minister has said, does he agree that while all subjects are important, mathematics and science are particularly important for this country for progress and competitiveness? Have the Government received any representation from the TTA about what it says is a very substantial shortage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord should listen to my Answer slightly more carefully. I said that there was no shortage at present but that we are not complacent about the future. That is why we have set some very demanding targets. With the demographic changes, partly within the teaching profession but also in the growth of the number of children coming forward in the next few years, it is obvious that we are going to need many more teachers in those subjects and in other subjects generally. I did stress that there has been a fall in recruitment and that again is something we are concerned about. We are in discussion with the Teacher Training Agency, which has a number of initiatives in order to try to improve the numbers and to improve recruitment of teachers, particularly in maths and science.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the immense problem of teaching maths in primary schools? In secondary schools we have a number of well-qualified maths teachers but I have heard many primary school teachers described as "mathsphobic". Is the Minister aware that the number
1028
of primary school teachers with the TCSE in maths is very low? Are there plans to tackle this immensely important problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that we do have concerns as regards primary and secondary schools is fairly clear. As I made clear at the beginning, there is not a shortage at the moment. There is a reasonable number of maths and science teachers. According to the most recent survey, there are about 38,000 teachers with maths qualifications within schools, but only 62 per cent. of them are actually teaching the subject. I suspect that that is a matter which the schools themselves can address to make sure that the right people are teaching the right subject.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, did my noble friend see the article in the Sunday Telegraph 10 days ago where it was shown that at least one maths teacher was appointed for ethnic and political correctness reasons rather than because of having experience of mathematics? Does he agree that that can hardly be conducive to properly teaching people mathematics?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I very much hope that the political correctness that we see in a number of local authorities does not extend to appointments on such grounds. Obviously we hope that if schools or local education authorities were seeking maths teachers they would seek teachers with the appropriate qualifications.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House the division of responsibility as it now obtains between Her Majesty's Government and the Teacher Training Agency for the tasks of, first, forecasting and, secondly, providing new ITT places in mathematics and science?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we make various forecasts of the changes that are likely to happen both, as I stress, in the number of children and in the structure of the teaching profession. The noble Lord will know that there are quite a number of teachers coming up to retirement at the moment and therefore recruiting poses certain problems for the future. That is why we have increased the target for recruiting and asked the Teacher Training Agency to look at various means by which it can encourage more people into the teaching profession, whether as late entrants or whatever, especially in certain priority subjects such as mathematics and science.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that mathematics is a subject which is innate in some people but rather less so in others? Is that not a very good reason for extending selective schooling in order to find more of those who have that innate ability?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. I suspect that we on this side of the House are united in our belief that there is nothing wrong with selection and a great deal to be said for parental choice.

1029
My noble friend will be aware that there are divisions to some extent, if I may put it mildly, within the party opposite.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister give more information about what he described as the initiatives being taken at the moment? Presumably they are being taken in conjunction with the Teacher Training Agency. Will the Minister also bear in mind that whatever the initiatives are, there is quite a time lag between convincing pupils to take a mathematics course at university, followed by teacher training, and their arrival at a school?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Teacher Training Agency is promoting a number of initiatives, including a project for taster and returner courses targeted on shortage subjects and under-represented groups in the profession. It is promoting Teaching as a Profession, which is a programme set up in September 1995. It is having discussions with specialised maths and science organisations. I could go on. The simple fact is that there is no one easy solution to the problem which is coming in the future. That is why the Teacher Training Agency is pursuing a raft of different courses.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there seems to be a shortage of maths teachers within the party to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, belongs in so far as, as yet, the mathematicians of his party have been unable to cost the programme that it is offering to the general public?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not clear from the results at GCSE A-level which have been published recently as between one school and one local authority area and another that there is a wide difference between the quality of teaching in these respective schools? In those circumstances, has not the supply of mathematics teachers been maintained by lowering standards?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the wide range of standards that exist within LEAs and within schools. That is one of the reasons we introduced the performance tables. They have done more than virtually anything else to raise standards. Interestingly, if I may briefly make a political point, they were opposed at the time by the party opposite and, I believe, the noble Lord's party as well.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not the case that what matters is not so much the quantity of teachers, which I gather is satisfactory, but their quality? What schemes do the Government have for retraining teachers who are already teaching mathematics and science, sometimes, if I may so put it, very inadequately because of the fact that they have been conversions from arts subjects and have been more or less drafted in to teach mathematics and science?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I think I made clear earlier, it is a fact that there are quite a number of maths
1030
teachers who are not teaching maths subjects. It is obviously right that schools should ensure that people are teaching the subjects they are trained to teach. I can also confirm that money is available for in-service training and, where necessary, teachers can be given refresher courses of one kind or another to improve their skills.

Vehicles for the Disabled: VAT Rating
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it remains their policy that VAT should not be charged on motor vehicles designed for disabled people when purchased by a disabled person for his or her own use or by an organisation serving the needs of disabled people.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, before I answer the Question perhaps I may congratulate the noble Viscount on his return to us and wish him every success.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it remains the Government's policy to retain the present VAT reliefs relating to motor vehicles for disabled people. Those include relief for vehicles specially designed for use by disabled people, and vehicles supplied either to charities providing care or medical or surgical treatment, or to certain other eligible bodies which pay for the goods wholly from voluntary contributions or charitable funds.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, that being so, why is VAT at present payable on the Venturer, described as a cross-country wheelchair designed for disabled people?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the question of defining what is eligible for relief is quite difficult. There are, so to speak, two hurdles over which a vehicle must jump, if I may use that expression, in order to obtain zero rating. First, it has to be a motor vehicle as defined. Off-road vehicles are not regarded as motor vehicles. Secondly, it must be able to carry people who are seated in wheelchairs. It is for those reasons—principally for the first reason—that the off-road vehicle, which I know the noble Viscount uses with such success, is not considered eligible for zero rating.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, judging from that answer, is there not a case for reconsidering the criteria for help for exemption from VAT? One criterion should be that if it helps disabled people and cannot be exploited by others there should be exemption. The point raised by the noble Viscount is surely within that category.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I very much appreciate the use to which some people can put an off-road vehicle, especially if they are interested in carrying out pursuits in the countryside. However, with

1031
regard to the law on zero rating, the position is that the vehicle must, as I said, obey these two criteria. It must be a motor vehicle as defined—that really means a road vehicle—and it must also be able to carry disabled people, either as passengers or drivers, in their wheelchairs. I am afraid that the vehicle in which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, is interested does not obey either of those criteria.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the defect of the tax called VAT that it falls on all kinds of areas where it is desirable that there should be expenditure and falls heavily on them? Is that not an inherent defect of VAT?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that Question Time is quite the time, especially on this rather narrow issue, to discuss the merits of direct or indirect taxation. I know that many of us on this side feel strongly that there are considerable merits in indirect taxation; taxation, that is, on people's expenditure. If one is to make exceptions to VAT—by zero rating or exemption—it has to be done on very tight grounds. Otherwise we would go back to the old sport which, as some of your Lordships will remember, we had on purchase tax.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister say what action would be required to ensure that zero rate of VAT on the particular vehicle referred to can be levied? Does it require primary legislation, secondary legislation, or could it be done by Inland Revenue regulation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Lord that the question of extending zero rating is a good deal more complicated even than the choice of school to which you send your child. One cannot extend zero rating in this country or any other European country because that would be a breach of the sixth VAT directive.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although he is a very popular Minister, the reply that he gave is a very unpopular one? Does he agree that the vehicle in question was developed specifically for disabled people and was developed in order that disabled people could enjoy the open countryside in the same way as those of us who are on two legs are privileged to do? Was it not developed for that purpose with the aid of a grant from British Telecom, that being a condition of its development? Will he accept that it must surely be possible to change those regulations, so that a vehicle designed for disabled people—which it clearly is—should qualify for zero rating whatever the bureaucrats in the Treasury or Brussels say?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is easy enough for my noble friend now to talk about regulations in that way. I do not suppose that he thought about them like that when he had to carry such responsibilities, though carried jointly so far as concerns the Treasury. The point I want to make is that in the advertising for the vehicle, though its value for people who are disabled is mentioned, the pictures of the
1032
vehicle lead me to believe that it is not specially adapted to allow people in wheelchairs to use it, be carried in it or drive it. That is one of the fundamental conditions which a vehicle has to pass before it can be considered eligible for zero rating. If someone were to buy the vehicle and adapt it in order to carry a wheelchair, the adaptations for that vehicle—or any other vehicle for that matter—would in fact fall to be zero rated.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to intervene on the question of the noble Lord's popularity. However, I find his answers puzzling. It seems to me that the points that have been made nearly cover the definition. Is the Minister not willing at least to go hack to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say that this vehicle is clearly for disabled people, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said? Will he accept that it is not a matter of the modification being free of VAT but that the vehicle ought to be free from VAT? It seems to me that the House would like him to say that we ought to look at this matter, given the arguments that have been put forward.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I looked very carefully at this matter when I studied the Question and indeed the Answer. I come back to the point I made. It is certainly not a road vehicle—nobody argues about that. But a second point is that, while it may be a very good vehicle for a disabled person, it is certainly not exclusively designed for a disabled person and any reading of the advertising material would certainly draw me to that conclusion. My last point, which I make again, is that in order to fall within the definitions, which have to be drawn in order to keep the area moderately tight so far as concerns taxation, the unit should carry someone in a wheelchair, which is one of the fundamental definitions that allow for zero rating.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that he listen to the makers, to whom I have spoken? They tell me quite plainly that it is possible to adapt this machine to carry a disabled person in a wheelchair.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if a vehicle were to be adapted to take a wheelchair in situ, certainly the adaptations upon it would be zero rated for VAT purposes. It does not get us away from the first Question, which is that it still would not be a road vehicle and so the whole vehicle would not be zero rated.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may narrow down the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Is there not a case for at least zero rating all equipment supplied to organisations which supply welfare services under the Value Added Tax Act l 994—I believe that it is Part II of Schedule 9?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness takes me a good deal wider than the original Question. There are a considerable number of VAT helps and advantages for disabled people. indeed, the total cost of the various zero rating advantages that are available for disabled people comes to something

1033
like £150 million a year. So there are some considerable advantages already on many of the goods bought for disabled people and, as I said about motor vehicles, for the alterations that are made to a motor vehicle to enable it to carry a disabled person.

Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Health Checks
2.56 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange for comprehensive medical examinations by competent consultants of all those individuals suffering chronic ill health which they believe is caused by exposure to organophosphate sheep dips on the same basis as the examinations offered to members of Her Majesty's forces who served in Operation Granby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords. Anyone suffering chronic ill health which they ascribe to exposure to organophosphate sheep dips should consult their general practitioner. The general practitioner can refer them to a consultant with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of illness caused by exposure to chemicals.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness is well aware of my battle to have these people looked at. In view of the fact that the use of organophosphates for sheep dip was, to all intents and purposes, compulsory between 1975 and 1992 and that most of the people affected were affected during that period, does she feel that it is only fair that they should be seen by a group of consultants who can deal with all of them? Does she believe that it would help in the clinical side of the research? I know that there is an epidemiological study which is due to report in 1999. Does she agree that we also need some clinical evidence so that the methods of diagnosis can be assessed more easily?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the first port of call for anybody who is ill is the GP, unless it is an emergency. We believe that the same system should apply to these people: first, they should see their GP and if he feels that further investigation is needed, they can be referred to a consultant.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the noble Countess last raised this Question in this House about six months ago, the inadequacy of GP referrals was mentioned? In response to a question from me, the Minister on that occasion said that the problem with extra-contractual referrals for those cases was minimal. Has she now reconsidered that position in the light of the evidence that there are more
1034
and more people who need this type of specific treatment and just do not receive it through the GP system?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have not reconsidered it because we do not believe there is a problem in consultants refusing to see people with that condition who have been referred by a GP.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is high time that the whole area of environmental medicine was taken more seriously? Will she accept that there is a marked reluctance on behalf of the Government and the medical profession to come to grips with the human health implications of an increasingly polluted environment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, increasingly government departments are working more closely together on this matter, particularly the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment. There are now a number of joint committees with experts on them to look at this particular issue.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are still tremendous problems with people obtaining a diagnosis from their GPs? Because the Department of Health does not recognise chronic organophosphate poisoning as a medical condition, GPs are reluctant to diagnose it. Therefore, patients who are ill do not receive the right treatment, are given drugs to which they react very strangely and flounder about in the wilderness. Will she please once more look at this subject and do something about it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we shall continually look at this subject. Indeed, the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all doctors in England in 1991 to draw their attention to this matter and did so again, with the chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, in June 1993. An article was written by the Chief Medical Officer in October 1995 and published in his update. The update is delivered to every GP, so that every doctor in the country would have seen it. Also, the noble Countess may be interested to know that the booklet, Pesticide Poisoning Notes, about which I know she was concerned and which was out of date, is being revised at the moment and will be published very shortly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to have to come back to the noble Baroness, but all those communications have been about the acute effects of organophosphate poisoning, not the chronic effects. Please will the noble Baroness look once again at the plight of those people who believe that they are suffering from the chronic effects of OP poisoning?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that those reports concentrated solely on the acute effects of OP poisoning. I believe that some covered chronic illness also.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the education of doctors include any training in how to recognise the effects of OP poisoning and, if so, how long has it done so?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the curriculum is very much a matter for the profession. Indeed, we rely

1035
on its views—and especially on the views of the General Medical Council and the Royal Colleges. I do not know the detail, but I shall write to the noble Earl with it if he would like me to do so.

The Post Office: Future
3 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the future of the Post Office.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government's plans for the future of the Post Office were set out in a Statement in another place on 11th May 1995 by the President of the Board of Trade.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in giving that Answer, has the noble and learned Lord read that Statement carefully recently? Among the criteria set for the greater commercial operation of the Post Office was included the comment that the amount of money that the Government would recover in the form of a negative EFL (external financing limit) would be about half of its post-tax profits, whereas in the event after the last Budget that was doubled and as a result the Post Office has now announced that it may well have to raise the cost of postage stamps despite being a highly profitable organisation. This matter was raised in a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on 18th December.
Does the noble and learned Lord further recall that in a television interview on 7th January, on being asked whether the Government had any further plans for the privatisation of the Post Office, the Prime Minister said that the matter was under serious consideration and that it could well be included in the next manifesto? In all those circumstances, is the noble and learned Lord surprised that the Financial Times, a much respected and objective newspaper, wrote in a leading article that the Government's treatment of the Post Office was a textbook case of how not to manage a public enterprise?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have indeed recently looked at the Statement to which I referred in my Answer. I am sure that the noble Lord will recollect that in making that Statement the Deputy Prime Minister, with the caution that is his hallmark, began the paragraph on external financing limits by saying:
"Although no responsible Government could undertake to ring-fence the Post Office entirely from the pressures on public spending, I am prepared to agree that in future we shall aim to set the EFL at about half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profit".— [Official Report, Commons, 11/5/95; co1.885.]
In the circumstances of a very difficult public expenditure round, that external financing limit was indeed raised to something like £298 million to be paid over. That is a significant sum. However, those who object to that sum being required of the Post Office should indicate where they would find that money for public expenditure generally. Would they increase taxes or make further cuts in public expenditure?
1036
I am impressed that the noble Lord should rise so early on a Sunday morning to listen to the Prime Minister. What he actually said was that further consideration would be given to privatisation proposals in preparing the election manifesto. He was as worth listening to on that occasion as he was yesterday afternoon.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the remarks that fell from the lips from the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday when he advocated that civil servants should be instructed in the use of graphical representation? If so, has the Minister taken it on board, because if a graphical representation was made of the number of people in the United Kingdom who are in favour of the privatisation of the Post Office, the depiction of those in favour would almost disappear off the graph paper by becoming a negative?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I think that it was an appreciation of public reaction that led to the Statement of 11th May. The Prime Minister has said no more than this—that further consideration will be given to privatisation proposals. I think that we should put the performance of the Post Office into context. We have now enjoyed the longest period of stability in stamp prices since the 1960s. There are fewer restrictions on capital expenditure. A new corporate planning process is under way and, as the chief executive of the Post Office has indicated, he now wishes to expand into Europe. That hardly seems to be a public corporation that is kept in fetters.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if any fundamental change is to be made to the Post Office, will the Government consider seeking the views, and providing opportunities for the views to be expressed, of the trades unions, the employers' organisations and the very many other organisations that are interested in the Post Office and its future?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that there have been a number of documents, not least the consultative document on the future of the postal service which was issued in June 1994. Therefore, there has been consultation when such matters have been considered. I emphasise what the Prime Minister said when he made that statement on television. He said that it was a matter that would be under consideration when the manifesto was drafted. I should have thought that that would reveal clearly that there was no intention of bringing about, or attempting to bring about, any privatisation of the Post Office this side of a general election
Lord Peston: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on finding a way of getting the future of selective education into a Question on the Post Office. As I prepare for the next debate, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether I should make some remarks on that subject ahead of him on the question of selective education in South America? Is that something that we should be doing all the time?

1037
On the Post Office itself, which is what I thought that this Question was about, did I understand his answer correctly—it seemed clear—that he regards the Post Office as doing extremely well because it is meeting its financial targets and is subject to enormous competition in the communications field? As is the case with the Stationery Office, would it not therefore be sensible to leave it to get on with things rather than going in for further barmy ideas about putting it into the private sector?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting proposal. I had not intended to mention selective education in a debate on South America, but if the noble Lord feels that I could usefully spend my time dealing with that matter in the next debate, I am happy to do so because there are some interesting points to be made.
I return to the fact that we believe that the Post Office is now doing well. It now enjoys greater freedom than previously. It has been successful and has made profits. I believe that it is developing well to the benefit of the consumer. Something like 92 per cent. of all first-class mail is delivered the next day and 98 per cent. of second-class mail is delivered within three days. That is a real success.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, after the debate on the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas and before the debate on the United Kingdom motor sport industry, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Mitchell Report.

Business of the House: Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is unusual for a Bill to be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House and it may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I give a few words of explanation of this Motion.
As your Lordships will know, the Reserve Forces Bill was published and consulted upon in advance of its introduction into your Lordships' House. However, during the process of consultation and the informal discussion of the Bill's provisions, it became apparent that the drafting could be improved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made several suggestions to that effect. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Howe tabled a substantial number of amendments in tail of those discussions. Those amendments were considered in Committee yesterday and the Bill has been reprinted as amended.
1038
Perhaps I should add that the Bill has been prepared and considered in a constructive spirit. During the course of that consideration, it has become plain that the Bill enjoys all-party support. I think that it is important, particularly for the future of the Reserve Forces, that we should continue to consider the Bill in that spirit. It is above all for that reason that I was extremely happy to consider the suggestion made through the usual channels to which this Motion gives effect. That will permit the Opposition and Back-Bench amendments to be considered in relation to the text of the Bill as it now stands.
Moved, That the Reserve Forces Bill [HI.] he recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.— (Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for what he has said. It is true that on Second Reading the Reserve Forces Bill obtained the general fair wind which I expect the Government would wish, and which we will continue despite certain hiccups. Nevertheless, I have to say to the noble Viscount that the Bill was published in draft in March 1995. There was wide consultation on the Bill. We gave it a Second Reading in this House on 28th November. It was given a fair wind by all sides of the House.
In response to a request to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the Minister in charge of the Bill, there were meetings on 15th December and 21st December—the day after the House was in Recess, if I may say so—between myself and my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Turner with the Minister to go through various points which we thought might be cleared up. The Opposition then tabled the large majority of their amendments on Friday 12th January and Monday 15th January for the Committee stage in the Moses Room under the new procedure on 23rd January.
Your Lordships will imagine my surprise when, on 16th January and 19th January, I received from the Minister a letter together with no fewer than 211 government amendments. Under those circumstances, I found it impossible to go into Committee on a proper basis, because the point of Committee, as I understand it and have always understood it—if I may say so I have some experience of handling Bills from the Opposition Front Bench—is for the Opposition and noble Lords in all parts of the House to question the Government and, if necessary, to move amendments, and to ask the Government to consider, or reconsider, what their Bill is about. It is not a process of a sausage machine simply to put in drafting amendments which clarify this and clarify that.
Yesterday's rather farcical procedure in the Moses Room took two hours and 10 minutes—all bar one minute spent on government amendments to which the Opposition took Trappist vows and did not speak. It took us two hours to get through those amendments. The Minister, and I do not mean this as an attack ad personem on the Minister, who has behaved, if I may say so, with dignity and courtesy throughout, felt that

1039
he had to oppose clause stand part of the Government's own Bill on the first day of Committee no fewer than four times.
I assume that we now have a Bill which can be put to a Committee of the Whole House in the normal way, but it is a sad and sorry tale. I have to say to the Leader of the House that I hope that we can now proceed in the way in which we should have proceeded before; that is to say, we have a Government Bill in front of us, and the Opposition and other noble Lords from all parts of the House will be able to make their contributions in Committee and on Report. No more of the time of the House will be wasted by government amendments. We assume that all the drafting has been cleaned up, although I understand from the Minister that we are now threatened with another schedule.
Let us hope that we can get on with the Bill. I join with the Leader of the House in insisting that there is still good will towards the Bill; but the good will has been severely strained.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House indicated that the Motion he has put before us today is unusual; and that is undoubtedly true. But we deserve a rather fuller explanation from him as to how the situation arose. As he rightly said, there has been all-party support for the Bill. That was true on Second Reading and it remains true today. But to be greeted with an avalanche of government amendments in the way that has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not a happy commentary upon the efficiency of the Ministry of Defence.
The Ministry of Defence puts forward a relatively small amount of legislation to Parliament. It seems that the level of competence that it has demonstrated on this occasion has been sadly lacking. We would all be reassured if the Leader of the House were able to indicate that he will make it clear to other departments that we will not accept a repetition of incidents of this sort.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in no way am I trying to criticise the noble Earl the Minister for the way in which he handled yesterday's proceedings in the Moses Room, but I found it an extraordinary and most unsatisfactory way of tackling what I believe to be an important Bill, and one upon which there has already been a great deal of consultation and agreement. When it comes back, I hope that we will not find ourselves having to deal with it in anything like the way we had to deal with it yesterday.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I should think that the Leader of the House must be very embarrassed by what my noble friend Lord Williams has said about the Government's treatment of the Bill. The only excuse that can be made is, as he has rightly said, that the Bill has general support in the House and among the reserve forces.
I have just one request to make. There are particular issues which some people may wish to raise at certain points in the Bill. The original Bill itself is a very
1040
formidable document. I cannot remember, but I believe that it has about 120 or 130 pages. Is it possible to show on the Annunciator when particular stages of the Bill will be reached so that those of us who may have an issue to raise—I have one that I may wish to raise later—can know where we are, and whether we can he here, there, or somewhere else?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, would it be appropriate to widen the debate somewhat by remembering the difficulties faced over the drafting of—I think it was—the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, and to consider these problems against the question as to whether we have too much legislation generally or not enough draftsmen to deal with it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the spirit in which they have addressed these exchanges. My noble friend Lord Pearson will recall, I am sure, what I thought was a most constructive debate during the previous Session in which we considered not merely the Hansard Society report on legislation but the report of the group of my noble friend Lord Rippon to the Leader of the House which was commissioned by my predecessor, during which I think everyone, including myself, expressed a keen attachment to considering how best we can improve the preparation and the planning of legislation. I remember in one of those debates announcing the recruitment of four more parliamentary draftsmen, something which I hope will, in part, address the point which my noble friend raised.
It seems to me, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, made an extremely helpful suggestion. I undertake to raise it with the administration of the House to see whether anything can be done to address the point that he has raised, which I sure the whole House will have heard with some sympathy. I undertake to report back to him to see what is practicable.
I wholly agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who said that this is an important Bill. During my time in the Ministry of Defence I had something to do with the early stages of the preparation of this piece of legislation. I can underline how important it is, not just to the reserve forces but, of course, in view of the increased integration taking place between the reserve forces and the regular forces, to the regular forces as well.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would admit—if that is not too strong a word—that the bulk of the proposed amendments is fairly detailed and technical in nature. They are substantially drafting points. There were a large number of amendments but the noble Lord himself suggested quite a high proportion of them. I believe that my noble friend has done his best to address the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I had hoped that the noble Lord would take that effort in the spirit in which it was intended.
The noble Lord and others suggested that we should give an undertaking that no more amendments should be proposed or accepted. I am sure that that is a misunderstanding because, after all, one of the purposes

1041
of this House, in particular in Committee, is to consider amendments to the Bill. If under the impact and the power of debate it becomes clear—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. He is quite right in saying that I am quite prepared to have government amendments which pick up points made by Opposition or other noble Lords with which the Government agree. I am quite prepared to have government amendments which rectify mistakes. What I am not prepared to see is a whole raft of government amendments on drafting points which should have been cleared up a long time before the Bill was produced to your Lordships' House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, it is for the House to decide, not just the noble Lord or myself, what it will and will not accept. I am sure that my noble friend will have listened with care to the expressions of opinion that have come from all sides of the House today. The Government will certainly undertake to continue to address the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House in as constructive, helpful and efficient a spirit as possible. I can do no more than beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 30th January
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. If your Lordships will forgive me I will leave it at that.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday, 30th January to enable the Motions standing in the names of Baroness Hollis of Heigham and the Earl Russell to have precedence over the Second Reading of the Chemical Weapons Bill.—( Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Americas: Free Trade Area
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein rose to call attention to political and economic opportunities in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest in that for the past 41 years I have been employed in different capacities by various companies in the promotion of British trading and investment in Latin America. I have also held numerous honorary positions in many societies, chambers of commerce and institutions involved with British-Latin American relations. Perhaps the most significant was that from 1987 to 1984 when I was honorary President of the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council, better
1042
known as Canning House, in which position I have been succeeded by my noble friend Lord Limerick, who unfortunately is not here today.
In October Canning House organised a most successful major conference on the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas known generally as the FTAA. The conference was chaired by my noble friend Lord Limerick with speakers from Latin America, the USA and Europe. I shall return later in my speech to the proposed follow up to that major event. However, it is important to look a little at the past in order to understand where we are at present. As there have been various attempts at hemispheric integration it may be helpful if I sketch in briefly some of the background.
The first significant post-war initiative was the formation of the Latin American Free Trade Area (LAFTA) in 1960 which was based on a proposal by the Economic Commission for Latin America. The objective was the promotion of manufacturing industry on a regional scale, with particular emphasis on import substitution. At the time, the general economic philosophy emphasised centralised planning. This naturally suited the military dictatorships which were then prevalent in Latin America with only pockets of democracy. For various reasons that I shall not go into it did not prosper. However, intra-regional trade started to grow rapidly during the 1960s and 1970s.
In the aftermath of the 1982 debt crisis, when democracy swept through the region, the concept of trade liberalisation and market forces became the accepted norm. Governments began to look again at the possibilities of closer regional integration and various sub-regional groups were formed. Indeed some, such as the Central American Common Market, had started and stopped during the intervening period. I accept that that is a rather cursory and superficial generalisation of 40 years of intense activity in the region but it is intended to paint only a general picture.
I turn to the present. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was launched at the summit of the Americas in Miami in December 1994 when the leaders of 34 countries from North, Central and South America plus the Caribbean agreed to establish a free trade area for the entire Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Cape Horn by the end of 2005. The Organisation of American States, revitalised under the leadership of Cesar Gaviria, the former President of Colombia, together with the Inter-American Development Bank, were charged with the implementation of this very ambitious project. A number of working groups have already been formed, and more will follow, to discuss the harmonisation of trade between the various countries. Unfortunately, Cuba is excluded due to a thoroughly flawed US policy. However, I am glad to say that my noble friend Lady Young, who has led several very successful trade missions to Cuba, will speak about that in the gap. I am grateful to my noble friend because she has had a busy week dealing with other pieces of legislation.
The interesting point about the initiative is that it is a logical extension of a growing number of existing bilateral and sub-regional agreements. During the past four years 26 bilateral free trade agreements within the

1043
region have been signed and a further eight are under discussion. The North American Free Trade Area, better known as NAFTA, comprising Canada, the USA and Mexico, is already in operation, as is Mercosur, the Southern Cone Common Market of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. A number of countries, led by Chile, arc hoping to join NAFTA.
If Mercosur grows into a South American Free Trade Area, which I suppose will be called SAFTA, a logical extension would be towards integration with NAFTA. The whole area would he one great free trade area. Whereas historically the countries of South America have concentrated solely on trade outside the region, the recent years have seen a massive increase in intra-regional cross-border trade and economic activity. Of course, all this is very much a reflection and a repeat of what has happened in Europe. It is interesting to note that the process is essentially economic with no suggestion of political overlay. Therefore, the dream of Simon Bolivar for a unified continent from top to bottom is still some way in the future.
The object of this debate is to draw attention to the implications of those developments for Britain, in particular for Britain within Europe, since Mercosur is already in direct discussions concerning trading arrangements with the European Union. Britain has historic links with Latin America and is a natural ally and point of entry for Latin America into Europe. We are the second largest foreign investor in many countries of Latin America, but, sadly, our percentage of trade is still less than 2 per cent.
The total population of the countries which will comprise the FTAA is over 750 million with a GDP approaching 9 trillion dollars. That would be the largest single integrated trading area in the world, and is therefore seriously important. Obviously it will be difficult to achieve and probably not within the time-scale of 2005, especially given the present internal difficulties in the USA between the Administration and Congress.
In the aftermath of the long drawn-out negotiations on GATT and NAFTA, I fear that there may be signs of trade fatigue in the USA, and that there will be little concrete progress until some time next year. However, in the long run, delay is less important than maintaining momentum towards the ultimate objective of a unified hemispheric trading area. It is a goal worth striving for.
In conclusion, I turn to the possible follow-up. One of the difficulties for Canning House, LATAG (The Latin American Trade Advisory Group), and other organisations concerned with promoting Latin America in Britain, is getting the interest and attention of major company chairmen. To that end, I have from time to time, both in letters and in conversations—and also in the 1990 debate on Latin America—suggested a high level conference which would be organised by the Department of Trade and Industry in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and opened by the Prime Minister. Obviously institutions such as Canning House, LATAG and the CBI would lend close support.
I should remind the House that the last major conference along those lines took place in 1972. That led to a substantial surge in interest. Therefore, the proposal is now more valid than ever, especially as a follow-up to "Link into Latin America" which was launched last year by the now deputy Prime Minister but the then President of the Board of Trade. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser will be able to say something positive about that idea today.
There are many things that I have overlooked in this huge subject, but I am sure that they will be picked up by other speakers. What is important about the proposed massive free trade area is that Her Majesty's Government should take it seriously as the opportunities for British trade and investment are so enormous. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when I made my maiden speech, just a week ago, a number of noble Lords said afterwards that they thought I was a little controversial for a maiden speaker. My only excuse, apart from the impetuosity of youth, was that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, were in such rumbustious form that I forgot myself and thought that I was back in the other place. However, I shall be under no such illusion today because I am sandwiched between two cerebral contributors. I am followed by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who, when I was a political cuckoo in his Foreign Office nest, treated me with great kindness when I worked as a political adviser there in the 1970s. Moreover, we have just heard a masterful introduction by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, who, quite rightly, pointed out his long association with Latin America, not least through his presidency of Canning House.
The issue that we are discussing today—
"the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas"—
is, in many ways, challenging us in Europe because at some stage we may be looking at similar issues and problems in relation to Africa. For example, how does a rich north deal with a less rich south and work a proper, stable relationship both politically and in trade? Perhaps in this ambitious project our colleagues in the Americas are setting us an example that we will follow.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, there is certainly a great interest in what happens. Indeed, 16 per cent. of Britain's visible exports go to FTAA countries as does about 37 per cent. of foreign direct investment from the UK. However, the lion's share of both those figures goes, of course, to North America, the United States and Canada.
The interesting point about our relations both with North and South America is how that is very much today a matter of a relationship not just between the UK and those continents, but one between the European Union and those continents. It is extremely encouraging that, in developing its policy, the European Union

1045
(which is often criticised for its straight bananas and for interfering in the minutiae of our lives) is, I believe, showing great imagination and leadership.
I suspect that much of the debate will be about Latin America, but perhaps I may say something about the northern part of the FTAA. In working out both its trade and foreign policy, it is important that Europe should take care to ensure that its relations with North America are in good order. I remember that in the 1970s Dr. Henry Kissinger had the idea of "a year of Europe" to refocus American thinking about the importance of North American European links.
I suppose that the time has passed for such an idea, but it is important and welcome that both the European Union and, indeed, President Clinton have shown a high priority for North American-European relations. Indeed, the recent European Summit in Madrid committed itself to promoting better and closer links between the business communities, between our science and technology communities and between educational and training establishments at all levels; and, perhaps as important, made a commitment to improve parliamentary links between North America and Europe. I say that because it worries me sometimes that those Republican freshmen who are giving President Clinton so many problems at present may turn their attention to the United States' links with Europe in a way which may not be entirely to our lasting advantage.
I believe that the noble Viscount quite rightly concentrated his remarks—and, indeed, I suspect that other speakers will do likewise—on the question of the opportunity side; that is, the opportunity that Latin America offers as a trading and political partner. The noble Viscount was correct to refer to the large number of groupings and associations which have grown up in Latin America over the past few years. I have in mind the Rio Group, the Group of 3, Mercosur and NAFTA. All those organisations are, in some ways, the best kind of flattery for the European Union. I say that because they obviously represent an attempt to emulate the kind of co-operation that European countries have shown and led by.
As I said before, I recommend that noble Lords should read the European Commission's document entitled The European Union and Latin America: the present situation and prospects for closer partnership 1996–2000. Those in Brussels do love snappy titles for their documents! Nevertheless, it is a good document because it sets an agenda for Europe that incorporates not only co-operation with the regional groups—for example, the Andean Pact, Central America and Mercosur—but also country-based initiatives with Mexico, Chile and Cuba.
The key to EU policy is institutional support and consolidation of the democratic process—something to which the noble Viscount referred—indeed, the very welcome return of democracy and the extension of human rights in Latin America in recent years; help to strengthen efficient legislative, judicial and police institutions and help to combat poverty and social exclusion. I know that the charity The Street Children Consortium does immensely good work with street
1046
children in many Latin American countries. We need to offer help with health and rural development and support economic reforms and co-operation in the fields of industry, science, technology and the information society. We also need to offer help with infrastructure and with education and training programmes.
As I say, this document is quite literally an example of the European Union at its best. However, this is not simply altruism because here we are dealing with an area of the world which has stewardship over two problems which, if they are not dealt with properly, will come to haunt us. First, there is the management of the environment. Unless we help the countries of Latin America not only to expand and to grow economically but also to hold in trust for all mankind their vast natural resources such as the Amazon Basin, great damage can be done to the global ecology.
Secondly, there is the matter of the drugs trade emanating from Latin America which affects both North America and Europe. Unless we offer positive help to those countries to give them alternatives to that trade we could find the problems which arise there very much on our own doorstep. The Madrid Summit announced that,
"It will continue to step up, by means of specific measures and projects and through co-operation in the appropriate fora, joint action to combat the production and social effects of drugs and drug-related crime".
Indeed, I hope that is so. I hope very much that MI5, MI6 and our other secret services are actively engaged in the war against drugs. We must regard drugs as a threat to our national security. We should deploy all the resources at our disposal to combat those dangers.
The noble Viscount referred to Cuba in the FTAA. I said that I thought that the EU policy document was sensible. It states,
"Cuba seems to be entering a period of change which the union is ready to back. To that end, the Commission has proposed the initiation of a dialogue aimed at examining the conditions for stronger relations with the country".
That must be a more sensible approach to a transition back to the mainstream of political and economic life for Cuba than continuing isolation. As someone who has always considered himself a friend of the United States, I believe it would be a disgrace if the United States continued to treat Cuba as a pariah to the point where the, present regime collapsed and was replaced by a regime as repugnant as the one Castro himself replaced. We should remember that it is not just a pack of liberal democrats waiting in Miami to return to Cuba. To allow Cuba to be a haven for organised crime would be a crime and a disgrace to the United States.
I should add that I am under strict instructions from my noble friend Lady Thomas, who cannot participate in this debate, to pay a graceful compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her continuing support in these matters. I gladly do so.
In initiating this debate the noble Viscount has enabled us to focus on some important areas of foreign and trade policy. Over the years our relations with Latin America have been fitful. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, being charged by Harold Wilson as Prime Minister to take a special interest in Latin America in the mid-sixties. We seem to have had a roller

1047
coaster of interest. I am pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently visited the area. That was a most welcome development. The noble Viscount has reminded us that across the Atlantic there are worthy partners for an outward looking Europe, and that we must seize this opportunity and develop relations. We wish them well in this bold endeavour.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, on his initiative in proposing this short debate. I express my thanks to that ex-cuckoo in the Foreign Office nest, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind remarks and my apologies for having missed his maiden speech. I also share good memories of our co-operation together not only in the Foreign Office nest hut also in the nest across the road.
I cannot myself claim anything like the experience or expertise which the noble Viscount has acquired on Latin America as a whole and on Argentina in particular. Indeed, I hope I shall be forgiven if I say that my education on Latin America has been somewhat selective. I shall therefore be brief. I never served in that region of the world during my 36 years in the Diplomatic Service although my first job in London was on the Central America desk in the Foreign Office and my last job, as permanent under-secretary, involved me in visits to several of the Latin American governments including, incidentally, Cuba. However, I was aware throughout my career of a sense of frustration and disappointment in the Diplomatic Service and in the Department of Trade and Industry that British business was not taking sufficient advantage of the opportunities which that region seemed to offer for exporters and investors alike.
Since my retirement from the Diplomatic Service I have seen at rather closer quarters what some sections of British industry are doing in the region. Indeed, I should declare an interest as non-executive director of three companies which are exporting successfully, and investing heavily, in several of the countries of Latin America. But I think it is still generally true that British exports to, and investment in, the sub-continent of Latin America do not match the opportunities which now present themselves with the reduction of tariffs, a general decline in protectionism, and falling inflation in a market which grew at an average of 17 per cent. a year between 1990 and 1993, and which is second only to Asia in the speed with which it has grown in the 1990s.
I have also seen for myself on a recent private visit to Argentina the wealth of goodwill which still exists there towards Britain in spite of our differences over the Falkland Islands. Any British visitor to Latin America must be struck by the continuing reminders of the historical role which this country played both in the struggle for Latin American independence and in the heavy investment which British business put into the infrastructure of many Latin American countries over the past century, particularly in the transport and energy sectors. I hope that the Minister
1048
will tell us something of the impressions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer received during his recent visit to a number of countries in the region.
The Minister will also, I hope, tell us something of the other measures which I understand the Government are taking to encourage British industry to take better advantage of these opportunities. I am delighted to learn that the Diplomatic Service has been able to strengthen its commercial sections in the region, including the opening of three new commercial posts in outlying cities of Brazil and Mexico in spite of the formidable pressures on the service in both manpower and finance.
Following the signature of the Treaty of Asuncion in 1991, intra-Mercosur trade has doubled to 10 billion US dollars. Both the Mercosur countries and the countries of Central America have made significant progress towards reaching agreement on a common external tariff, reflecting a change in philosophy throughout the sub-continent towards the conduct of economic policy which has led to a significant increase in the European Union's investment and trade with Latin America. I am glad to learn that British investment now represents over 40 per cent. of European investment in the region; and that British exports to Latin America increased by over 60 per cent. between 1991 and 1994. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has implied, our market share is still much less than it could or should be—significantly lower than that of France, Germany or Italy.
It is nevertheless encouraging that the Government, both bilaterally and in co-operation with our European partners, have taken steps recently to upgrade our political links with many of the governments in the region. The signature of a European Union Mercosur Co-operation Agreement in December, and agreement on negotiating mandates for co-operation between the European Union and both Mexico and Chile, are important steps forward. I should perhaps mention, as chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, that I much look forward to the visit which President Zedillo of Mexico is paying to Chatham House next week.
This is an exciting and encouraging moment in the economic and political development of Latin America. I hope that both Her Majesty's Government and British industry will strive even harder to build on the major opportunities presented by these changes throughout the sub-continent and will give careful and positive consideration to the proposals put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, nobody—but nobody—has done as much over so many years to establish and maintain links with Latin America as my noble friend Lord Montgomery. Even today, it is thanks to his foresight in tabling the Motion and his good fortune in being drawn in the ballot that we are able to debate this important topic in your Lordships' House at a very early stage in the development of this Free Trade Area of the Americas. I am happy that we are debating the issue which includes South America and Central America as well as North America.

1049
In my case my own first-hand experience dates back some 30 years to when I spent a postgraduate year at the Universidad Central of Quito. As a law graduate the course I chose to study in the Institute de Derecho International (the Institute of International Law) compared the then regional associations within Latin America with those of Europe.
In those days the United Kingdom was not yet a member of what was then the European Economic Community, but we did belong to EFTA. In Latin America, as has been said, there was then a Central American Common Market, the Latin American Free Trade Area, and the embryonic Pacto Andino. Of all those organisations, only the Pacto Andino remains, although in a somewhat different form.
In a sense, nothing is new. But there have been major changes and developments in the intervening years. What I celebrate particularly about the proposals for a Free Trade Area of the Americas is, first, that they represent a widening of the region. This it is to be hoped will overcome the rivalry, and perhaps I may say paternalistic attitudes, which dictated the relationship between Anglo-Saxon America and Latin America. Secondly, the new arrangement recognises and reinforces the principles of free trade and greater openness and transparency in trade practices which we all seek to ensure. None of that would have been possible without the strengthening of the democratic institutions and the disciplines of economic reforms throughout the region, to which reference has been made.
However, it is interesting that in Europe we, too, have experienced not similar but equally dramatic changes with the enlargement of the European Community, now the European Union, and the opening up and developing of relations with central and eastern Europe.
Like others in the debate—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already referred to it—in focusing my remarks on Latin America, I should like to draw attention to two developments which I believe augur well for the proposed free trade area. The Americas have always been a section of the world (if I may so put it) rich in natural resources. But it is interesting that today it is oil, not gold, which attracts attention. School children no longer learn just about Texas oil wells. They are quite familiar with the fact that Venezuela is rich in oil and that Mexico too, has oil production. They may even be aware of Ecuador, Columbia and Peru in that context.
One of the most exciting developments in the region is the dramatic change and opening up to international competition of the oil industry in Latin America. I learned only this morning that in the first four allocations in the current Venezuelan oil round two areas have been allotted to European companies and two to United States companies. There are six further areas to be allotted, but even in old fields, new technology is making finds never dreamed of and it is vital that this global industry remains part of the important international trade.
1050
I am happy that the need to keep the oil industry open and international has been recognised and that a seminar on energy sponsored by the European Union will take place in June in Caracas. It will be followed by a seminar in London in September on Energy in Latin America. The London seminar is being organised by the Centre for Global Energy Studies, of which I am a governor, and will again be supported by the European Union. I feel sure that in the years between now and 2005 there will be many other follow ups in that area to encourage stability and free trade norms in this sector, and to ensure the observance of internationally recognised environmental standards. However, the oil industry represents global interests and big business.
The other area to which I wish to make special reference is the development of links for small businesses, whether exporters, importers or hopeful partners of joint ventures. That is the area with which the United Kingdom Government links to Latin America programme is principally concerned, as has been mentioned.
Last year I had the pleasure of carrying out duties in Ecuador for the Government in connection with a successful British season there. My visit coincided with a mission organised by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry which included representatives of some 20 companies and businesses ranging from Rolls-Royce to a specialist manufacturer of pipe couplings and repair products.
Useful contacts were made and I could see the possible development of commercial relationships which were being established. I hope to hear of progress in the two-way trade that should develop and I shall make a point of finding out the result of any joint ventures that were being discussed. At the time of that visit, it was evident that the DTI's initiative on links to Latin America was proving effective. A representative of a secondee to the DTI in the programme was present, he was extremely helpful and I am sure he will ensure that there is a follow through.
More recently, at the end of last year, I was privileged to lead a trade mission to Argentina and Chile, sponsored by the DTI but organised by the British Argentine Chamber of Commerce and the British Chilean Chamber of Commerce. Again I was able to see at first hand the benefit of direct links and contacts, principally for small businesses which might not have dared to charter such unknown territories. With perhaps one exception, all 29 businessmen in the group were there for the first time. They were able to reap the benefit of all the preparatory work that had been done, with the support and back-up which going in a group of that kind provided for them.
In that context, perhaps I may pay a tribute to the British Embassies in both places, in particular to their commercial departments. The service which is now available to British businessmen who wish to develop links is most impressive. I imagine it applies for anywhere in the world but I saw it at first hand in Argentina and Chile. The same has to be said for the embassies of those countries over here. Everyone is prepared now to recognise that the development of

1051
world trade is a priority and that it must be achieved by starting at the grass roots and developing small business contacts.
It was also interesting on that visit to find that, in a sense, expectations did not entirely match up with what was found. For example, there can be no doubt that the 29 small businesses represented in the trade mission had intended to learn about the market in Argentina. As well as low inflation, rising GDP and a warm welcome, what they found unexpectedly was that it was not just the market in Argentina that they were considering. Establishing a business in that country would give them an entrée into the wider market represented by Mercosur. Similarly in Chile, we were not just looking at the market there but at the countries with which Chile has established bilateral arrangements and at its future relationship with both Mercosur and NAFTA.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the European Union and Latin America. I am happy that on a regional basis we are making an effort. Along with the noble Lord, I shall be even happier to see in the future that British participation in that effort is even greater than it has been. In particular in relation to the agreement which was recently signed between the European Union and Mercosur, it should be underlined that it is a promising way forward. As a first step, it seeks to support the creation of an internal market for agricultural products, with special emphasis on improvement of sanitary quality, as they put it. That seems to me the kind of thing which would make our business people, food processors and food manufacturers, look at what is going on there to find out what opportunities exist.
There are many more ways in which the United Kingdom can make a positive contribution and take a particular interest in the development of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. After all, we have a special relationship with the United States and we certainly have a very special relationship with Canada. We have much to contribute and many links to follow up with the various countries of central America, South America and the Caribbean. We have not heard too much about the Caribbean so far but I feel we shall soon have that pleasure.
There are other matters such as languages and the opportunity for more English-speaking people to learn to speak Spanish or Portuguese. There are many links and contacts in the educational field which must be developed, for which the atmosphere is right at the moment. I should be interested to hear from the Minister, when he winds up, what future he sees for educational and cultural links, particularly through the vehicle of the British Council, as well as in relation to various specialised missions which I know have taken place.
I realise that in such a debate we should basically dwell on broad strategies, general principles and multilateral links. But at the end of the day it is through the enthusiasm and efforts of people, individuals, that progress is made. When we talk about world organisations, regional organisations or individual countries, it will be the people in those countries who
1052
will have to see things through. I very much hope that this new Free Trade Area of the Americas will be a suitable vehicle to enhance that individual effort and improve the common lot.
4.7 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I remember well that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, spoke after my maiden speech on Latin American affairs, and it is a pleasure to follow her today.
The noble Viscount is to be congratulated on inviting serious consideration of this important subject. I believe, however, that the proposed free trade agreement must be seen in the wider context of the agreed principles of the 1994 Miami Summit. It is intended to encompass not only the promotion of prosperity, through economic integration and free trade, but also specific measures for the eradication of poverty and discrimination through improved access to education and health care. The strengthening of the role of women in political, social and economic life; the guarantee of sustainable development and conservation of the natural environment; support for democracy, migrant workers' rights, eradication of corruption, money laundering; and a volunteer corps of people to tackle natural disasters, for development needs and emergencies, are also part of the package designed to integrate substantial areas of the hemisphere. All that has great merit. not least going a long way to deal with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Regionalism, shared resources, dialogue, democracy, together with free trade, are the essential ingredients for an equitable and safer world. I wonder what lessons might be drawn from this initiative that could have an equally beneficial impact on other regions of our global community. Could its principles be adopted—and adapted—to Africa's advantage? Could that be the blueprint for a new world order? I was delighted that once again the noble Lord, Lord McNally, touched on this subject.
I should mention one important caveat to this agreement which relates to the less well-off states. We in the UK are all aware of the difficulties that face mono-crop economies. Yet fair trade on a level playing field, as a result of being competitive, remains the goal.
Aid is not the answer, nor can preferential access survive in these new contexts, although it is difficult to envisage, for example, micro-states of the Caribbean competing effectively in the short or medium term without special assistance. So it is with relief that one notes in the declaration of principles and plan of action the following:
"As we work to achieve the Free Trade Area of the Americas, opportunities such as technical assistance will be provided to facilitate the integration of the smaller economies and increase their levels of development".
Many will be greatly heartened by that, even if the true test of such commitment arises only at the implementation stage.
The agreement looks for negotiations for progressive elimination of barriers to trade and investment to be completed by 2005, with a commitment to substantial

1053
progress by the turn of the century. I understand the concerns of the noble Viscount when expressing his doubts about keeping to that timetable, but at least there is a timetable, without which this initiative would not pass "Go".
The trade ministers meeting in Denver last summer did not move forward as much as had been hoped. There was a difference of view as to whether the agreement should be an expansion of NAFTA or a fusion of the existing trade groups. In addition, President Clinton still needs a fast-track authority in order to conclude any trade agreement. This would give the authority to negotiate, with Congress relinquishing the ability to amend.
The noble Viscount also spoke about the importance to the UK of Latin markets. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in support. We were reminded this afternoon of the sad fact that the United Kingdom's returns with the Latin region do not correlate well with our direct investment programme. We are, after all, the second largest investor. But perhaps of greater concern is the loss of market share over the past 10 years. That situation can, and must, be reversed.
The opportunities are now more pronounced than ever, with our products and services highly competitive due to the devaluation of sterling against the US dollar, and the goodwill generated by the many exchanges of visits by high-ranking government Ministers. With the creation of trading communities such as Mercosur, Caricom and the Association of Caribbean States, and in anticipation of the enormous opportunities that will be created by this hemispheric free trade area, market size and potential now justifies involvement by the largest of our companies. There are many projects, both large and small, in the pipeline; and we have the knowledge and competitive edge to secure a stake in them. However, we shall secure a major share only by working from within, negotiating and serving customers where they are comfortable: on home turf and in their own language. We must therefore prepare and proceed accordingly.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, as has been usual in most of my trading life, I find myself breathing down the neck of my noble friend Lord Montgomery—a man, a visionary, a missionary. I suppose that the only time he breathes down my neck is on the ski slopes. As we know, since the war the pound sterling has depreciated by 94 per cent. against the Swiss franc. I have not spoken in this House and bored noble Lords on the subject of trade for such a long time that I thought I would try again.
Sometimes we get bored out of our minds and keep repeating the same rhetoric again and again. I recently re-read some of the histories of merchant banks and of countries that I had never heard of. I started to read Winnie the Pooh, and came across the extract:
"Sometimes I sits, and sometimes I thinks, and sometimes I sits and thinks".
1054
I have done a lot of sitting and thinking. Some of the "beat-up" parts of the world I have visited do not have very reliable transport. The plane that you are bound to get on does not exist, or does not arrive, and you cannot find a foreign newspaper, so you sit and think. And after nearly 33 years as an outpatient in this strange form of university in which I find myself today, I wonder whether I have learnt anything. And I realise that I have learnt a lot, but probably know nothing.
Recognising that those on the Labour Benches do not seem very enthusiastic about trade—there are so few speakers from that side—I want to ask the noble Lord. Lord Peston, if he can help me with a question that worries me. I should like to read a good essay, whether of a few words or a few thousand words, on the economic and political future of the United Kingdom—not about other parts of the world, but about ourselves at home.
I declare an interest. I have served on various trade boards, all unpaid; I am currently president of the British Exporters Association; I chair the international side of the Engineering Industries Association. I started my life in asbestos. All I seem to do is work in declining industries, and I realise that I am part of a dying breed. I suppose I am a peddlar, a tinker, a trader, or maybe even a privateer.
That is the word I come to in regard to the matter of trade with various parts of the world. Like myself, noble Lords know well that there are 5 billion people in the world. We churn these figures out as so many millions to whom we must sell. But surely we should examine our own economy and learn a little from the past.
Our great Industrial Revolution was not based upon ourselves; it was based on attracting foreigners—foreign technology and foreign investment. A hundred or so years later, we have reached the stage when the United Kingdom should never again use the word "export". Britain is no longer simply a national country. We no longer have an empire. But we are probably the sole successful international country in the world.
I think we became lazy. By good fortune rather than initiative and drive, we have attracted to these shores a remarkable collection of international people of all cultures, who have helped to restore and revitalise parts of our economy. The initiatives that Government have taken have been very good—because Government have not taken much initiative; nor should they. They have withdrawn from their role in trade; they never traded. If you ever ask, "What are the barriers to trade?", usually it is Her Majesty's Government. They find reasons why you should not go there.
I quote but one small example from the time when I first thought it would be a good idea to go to Cuba. I knew that people of Socialist leanings had close relationships with Cuba, so I asked the late Lord Walston, who had been a Foreign Office Minister, whether he would be kind enough to open the door for traders to Cuba. He told me the story of how, as a Minister in the Foreign Office, he had wanted to visit all his territories. The Foreign Office said that he could not visit Cuba because it would be misinterpreted as an official visit. However, it came

1055
up with the cunning idea that he could visit a country in the Caribbean on the way to visiting his own plantations in St. Lucia. So as a Minister he made a private visit.
I have learnt that the reasons why British trade and investment developed with many of those countries was that somebody thought it a good idea at the time. The reasons why they thought it a good idea were simply a question of gain, not of greed or glory. It was a development of the natural resources, to which my noble friend referred. As noble Lords know, throughout history, all cultural development has been related to the development of natural resources: the copper belt, and now perhaps the oil belt.
In that great area of the world we have a problem. We have been so successful in GATT discussions—the Uruguay Round—and free trade, that geography is no longer necessarily important in terms of the development of trade. If we study the development of our own interests historically, they were trade related, not geographically related. I regret now that I cannot find a single school that includes geography in its curriculum. I remember having to learn the rivers with those pictures of what mineral was located where and why. But people's own knowledge and knowledge of countries, to which my noble friend has referred, is remote and distant.
I do not know what the word "yore" means, but in the days of yore British companies had agents and representatives who would promote and develop their interests around the world, particularly in Latin America. When one speaks to people out there now there are a few left who say, "My father used to do a lot of business with the British". There are quite a few who say, "My grandfather used to do a lot of business with the British". There are more and more who say, "I think that my ancestors once traded with the British".
I do not believe that this Government can do much more to help and support trade. I have tremendous respect for the Department of Trade and Industry, having worked closely with it in many areas of the world over a vast number of years. What I believe we are missing, and my noble friend referred to it, is initiative by industry or British commerce itself; not by the public sector nor do I like the phrase, "private sector". It is extraordinarily difficult to go to a senior company in this country and say, "Here is an opportunity for you in a country with which you are not trading today" and to get them to go there.
Because they feel nervous, they like to go with a Minister. Over the years Ministers have spent an enormous amount of time taking businessmen abroad, failing to recognise that the businessman in general is going only so that he can have a discussion with the Minister about the row over high salaries in his industry or others. The people who trade are usually at a lower level. Those over the age of 35 years were always sent back from the Empire as being too old.
I am not being a cynic, but I believe that our problem lies not with government, not with export credit, not with aid, but with the need for a new thinking process about trade. The last mission I took abroad was not to that part
1056
of the world. I was horror-struck to find that I had four non-British out of nine people on the trip. I wanted to object. In fact, the British Government were making no contribution to that trip, although in the past they had kindly paid for things with which I have been associated. I also had paid for things with which they were associated. It has been a very fair and reasonable relationship.
But when one is trying to move a complete industry and a psychology back towards the former trading partner of Latin America, the Caribbean or even Canada, it is an uphill battle. I am not quite sure what we can do about it. The conference idea is not a new one. If only it were possible to get the key decision-makers together where the private sector and government draw attention to the opportunities, that would go a long way. The Government themselves have often forgotten that because of the desire always to get the state to pay, that they have within their walls vast goodwill and relationships where often a phone call from a Minister or a senior civil servant to a company saying, "I shall be most grateful if you would look at Argentina or Chile" or whatever, does an enormous amount of good.
We are talking about a part of the world about which very few people who are working in business today have any knowledge. The premature retirement age or the early retirement age, means that people who leave their company at the age of 57 or 60 are replaced by those who, although better trained than their predecessors, have no international experience or relationships. Most of the trade outside the G7 is still dependent on very close, long-standing, personal family relationships, and that is particularly true in the Caribbean and Latin America. Sadly, here we have destroyed many of the family-owned businesses of the past—and I make no further comment on that—and the relationships have died with them. Anyone in the branded goods field will say that to revitalise a brand is an extraordinarily uphill and difficult battle. The only way it can be done is to buy oneself into the market.
That leads me to the final point I wish to make. For a long time we were trying to encourage foreign investment over here. Although there were many of us who were extremely anti-Japanese in the beginning, we now do nothing but sing the praises of the success of Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. We then stopped trying to encourage British investment abroad, forgetting that trade and investment are totally linked. At this particular time we should be moving all out to encourage the maximum possible British-led investment in that part of the world. Why? It may be said that we are the largest foreign investor. It is not us, but money that comes to, and passes through, London. It is quite incredible how the globalisation of international markets has provided a financial base that can support, without any detriment to the British economy, vast investment around the world. Therefore, I believe that our future should not be export-led, but investment-led.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking in the gap. I believe that some of my noble

1057
friends have decided that I can speak only on family law. I do sometimes address other subjects. I indicated that I wished to speak in this debate last week.
I am very glad to do so because, like other speakers, I particularly admire what my noble friend Lord Montgomery has done in building up very strong relations between Britain and Latin America: nobody has done more. He has promoted debates in your Lordships' House and constantly goes on trade missions to Latin America. I believe that no one in your Lordships' House knows that area better than he does.
I first became interested in that part of the world when I was a Foreign Office Minister and had ministerial responsibility for all the Americas including Latin America. I was fortunate enough to be able to make eight visits there during that time. I was also ministerially responsible for the Caribbean. It is to that area that I wish to address my remarks this afternoon because it is a part of the world that has not yet been covered. I can do so in my current capacity as president of the West India Committee.
I wish to say something about the Caribbean because the incorporation of the Caribbean into the Free Trade Area of the Americas by the year 2005, presents to those small countries a very great challenge indeed. They already have a number of changing patterns of relationships. The Caribbean has special links to Britain, France, Spain and to the European Union. The decision to pursue joining the Free Trade Area of the Americas is causing Caribbean governments to develop policies which react to four convergent, but rather different processes.
First, how can the Caribbean position itself between Europe—particularly the European Union—and the United States, as the European Union begins to accelerate its special relationship with Latin America, referred to earlier in the debate, through the development of special economic and other ties with the nations of Mercosur, the San Jose countries of Central America and with Mexico and Chile? That is one area.
Secondly, how can they position themselves as regards the changing relations with Latin America as a whole and the European Union and the development of policies that will affect any agreement that the Caribbean and the ACP might achieve when Lome IV ends in the year 2000?
The third and rather complicated process, is how the countries can determine how much weight they should place on the US Administration's long-term commitment to the free trade area, and how its requirements for full reciprocity might be phased in and structured in such a way that the United States in particular recognises that special provisions will be needed for the successful integration of the smaller economies of the Caribbean countries. Their needs are so different. For instance, one considers St. Lucia, which was referred to, and Dominica, and these very small and fragile economies which are so unlike the enormous economies in Latin America and the United States itself.
1058
The fourth process, which is also a difficult one, is the decision to take forward the Association of Caribbean States as a body that will in the long term assist the Caribbean Basin as a group to participate fully in the global economy in such a way that it can take advantage of both the free trade area and the European Union.
To bring those four processes to a successful conclusion, Caribbean governments will need to address a number of complex situations. And they have, of course, relatively small populations with which to address them.
The United Kingdom's overall concern must he how the small Caribbean nations—for example, Dominica—will be able to come to terms with the free trade area. Clearly, a nation of that size, with a population of only around 100,000, will not be able to cope with a free trade Brazil, Mexico or Chile, let alone the United States. Britain therefore needs to work closely with the Caribbean and with the European Union to ensure that there is a lengthy period of transition during which the special concerns of small island economies are taken into account.
This is not the time or the debate to go into the complexities of the banana regime, which has been raised in the House before, but we need to remind ourselves that a number of economies depend upon one crop and that if that is taken away there is a danger that it could be replaced by something difficult and unpleasant, such as drugs. I am not suggesting for one moment that it necessarily would be, but it is a possibility.
In all these complex arrangements with free trade areas we have a great responsibility towards the smaller countries of the Caribbean. We need our European Union partners to develop a European Union approach which supports the policy we are adopting and makes quite clear to the United States that regional stability, which is of great interest to the United States, will depend on a gradual and supported transition to open markets.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, kindly referred to the visits I have made to Cuba and passed on greetings from his noble friend Lady Thomas. As part of my interest in the Caribbean I have in the past two-and-a-half years paid two visits to Cuba. It is a country which I expect to visit again later this year. I am currently chairman of what is known as the Cuba Initiative, which is an organisation of a number of businessmen and women with business interests in Cuba. It has a corresponding committee in Cuba itself. Its purpose is to promote trade between Britain and Cuba. It works closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and I am pleased to say that my honourable friend Mr. Ian Taylor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the DTI, has paid two very successful visits to Cuba. I hope very much that I can encourage my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser to follow his example and visit Cuba before too long.
Cuba has been excluded from the free trade area. Conscious as I am of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selsdon about trade missions—I hesitate to say that I have led two trade missions to Cuba—it is a

1059
country which to anyone is extraordinarily interesting to visit. I say that—I have already spoken in your Lordships' House on it—because it is a country very much in transition and experiencing change. No one can go there without being struck by the country's efforts to move towards a freer economy. Last time I was there I had a fascinating visit to a market which was freely operating, as would any market in any industrialised country, selling food and other things. After I had been around and had seen all the goods and the varying prices, with people pressing me and everyone else to buy things, I was asked what I thought. I said, "This is a market. This is the operation of a private enterprise organisation. This is capitalism". And, indeed, it was. There were other markets. I was taken with great pride to a farm where a man said to me, "It is now a farmers' co-operative and we are determined to get our fruit to the market before our competitors". One began to see the number of real changes taking place.
In relation to the remarks made about American policy towards Cuba, I think that it must surely he in the interest of Britain, the European Union and, if I dare say so, the United States to try to encourage as far as we can these developments towards a free enterprise economy. That is one of the purposes of taking trade missions, of having the Cuba Initiative and of encouraging visits between the two countries. On the political front, which is another matter, Cuba is not a democracy but it has taken one or two steps in that direction. It now has a national assembly and there is a certain amount of discussion and, what is more, criticism—it may be behind closed doors but it is there—of some of the things the government have done. It must surely be in our interests to encourage democracy in Cuba.
There is, after all, a self-interest which we as a country can have in trading with Cuba while the American embargo exists. We should make the most of that opportunity and encourage it. But we should not do so just for that reason. We should encourage it because it will greatly improve trade relations between our two countries and because Cuba is a country which Britain and other countries of the European Union can certainly help bring into the ambit of the western world.
I hope that Cuba will eventually be able to join in the regional integration within the area. I do not believe it is in the interests of the Caribbean, the United States or the European Union that Cuba should remain outside and that Cuba should in any way be destabilised. It is quite the largest country in the Caribbean. We should encourage all these positive and good movements.
I should like to leave not only that message about Cuba but another about the Caribbean generally. When we talk about these important developments in the free trade area with America and about all the other groupings which undoubtedly are leading to greater prosperity we should not forget the very different problems which face the small countries of the Caribbean, with their small populations and fragile economies. We should do all we can to ensure that they prosper too even if it means that we have to apply some special measures to help them achieve that prosperity.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not know whether it is appropriate that I, too, should apologise to your Lordships for intervening in the gap. If it is. I do so. However, when I joined your Lordships' House some years ago I received quite a lecture from the then Clerk of the Parliaments that he felt that when time permitted more noble Lords who had listened to the whole of the debate and felt they had something to say should intervene in the gap.
I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Montgomery for introducing the debate and I should declare an interest as the chairman of a firm of international re-insurance brokers. We trade in almost every country of South America, and I have visited or will visit almost every country there this year.
In that capacity, I should like to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, had to say about the high level of investment—in most South American countries, we are the second highest investor—and the comparatively low level of trade that that brings to us. I also underline the fact that the overall growth rate of 17 per cent. in recent years in that continent is explosive. I do not want to single out any one particular country but at the moment Brazil is perhaps particularly impressive in the way in which recently it has brought inflation so valiantly under control.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned Colombia and the drug trade. I should like to put in a plug for Colombia, if I may. When I was there recently I was constantly reminded of the fact that it is our demand which creates the Colombian drug trade. It is not enough for us just to sit here and say that they have to get the drug barons under control. Without the demand, the drug barons would be out of business.
Having taken that commercial view of South America, I want to take issue with some noble Lords who, I feel, have seen too substantial a role for the European Union as such in the future of South America. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, went so far as to say that he felt that some of the groupings—Mercosur and others—which are emerging in South America were emulating the European Union. I have to say that I very much hope that they do not. I hope that they will not emulate the Social Chapter or the absurd interference which comes with harmonising the single market. I believe that our South American friends know that a level playing field and a market are a contradiction in terms. I am sure it is helpful for European Union finance to be available to our South American friends, but I trust they realise that they will need a fairly long spoon when they sup with that particular devil and take advice on political institutions and judicial and educational matters.
My fear about the European Union in this matter is that it is once again merely trying to extend its field of competence, or, rather, incompetence. I very much hope that it will be the separate sovereign states of Europe which will take the enormous opportunities that the South American continent offers us and develop those opportunities with our friends in the countries in that continent.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I join with all other noble Lords in expressing our debt to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for introducing this important debate. I too am deeply disappointed that so few noble Lords felt able to take part in this debate but, if I may utter the usual cliché, we make up in quality for what we lack in quantity.
This debate is to call attention to political and economic opportunities. I shall concentrate on the economic side because, as I demonstrate in most weeks to your Lordships, I have no understanding whatever of political matters. On the economic side, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that I convey to your Lordships my views on the past, present and future of the UK economy at fairly regular intervals and I make those views available free of charge. If he would like more than that, I can give him more, but I have a rather high consultancy fee, especially looking to the future.
Perhaps I may make one other preliminary remark. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the banana regime and so on. I think she is right that this is not the occasion to debate that matter. I myself published some research on it two or three years ago. Let me just say that I agree with every single word that she said. Perhaps we shall come back to that issue at some time.
I regard myself as someone who is very much committed to free trade. I wish to see free trade generally, certainly in the whole of the American continent. If we eventually end up with the Free Trade Area of the Americas, I believe that not only will those countries gain but the whole world will gain. I certainly see no threat there to the European Union. Nor do I see any threat from the European Union to that area. I am supportive of it.
Having said that, I should like to follow other noble Lords and emphasise the South American aspect, but that is not to detract from the enormous importance of the United States and North America generally. But the point is—I shall illustrate it very clearly in a moment—that one often acts as though there is no such place at all as South America. For most people America means the United States. I am aware of that. In preparing for this debate, I was staggered to find how little I knew about South America and South American economies. That is another reason why I thank the noble Viscount for encouraging me to learn something about them. Until recently, if I had been asked the name of the Brazilian currency, I should not have known that it was the real. Nor would I have known that the Argentines have the peso. Even now, although I could tell the House just like that the sterling/dollar exchange rate up to a few hours ago, I do not have the faintest idea of the sterling/real exchange rate. That is indicative of a lack of knowledge of a very important continent.
As someone who has been an academic for a great many years, I do not recall ever talking about South America in any of my lectures, though I very often talked about the United States. I do not remember even as a student anyone telling me that I ought to know
1062
anything about the economy of South America. That is all indicative of a lack of balance, which I certainly should like to see rectified.
In that connection, I should like to say a word about languages taught in our schools. I am not one of those people who say that English is the only language that anybody needs to know in order to succeed in this world. Neither do I think that French is the only alternative language that we ought to use. I was immensely impressed by the pronunciation of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, of what I took to be Spanish. I should like to see more people learning some Spanish. I should also like to see them learning some Portuguese. It is all very well to say that other people can speak English. My experience has been that in any kind of dealings with people from abroad, they are immensely appreciative of one's ability to say even a few words in their language and at least to show that one appreciates that they have a culture of their own.
One should not just have a vision of South America as nations which produce great footballers and rhythmic dances. I looked it up and found that South America has five Nobel prizes for literature and five Nobel peace prizes. The Argentines have both a physics and a chemistry Nobel prize. That is not bad going for that part of the world. We have to take those places seriously. It is to our advantage.
That brings me to a matter about which I am puzzled. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to it. We know that, in terms of investment, British people and British companies regard South America as a place into which it is very worth pouring capital. And we do. But there is a puzzle and it is a genuine economic puzzle; namely, the scale of our trade is minuscule compared with that. I wonder why that can be so. Those are markets which our competitors find worth going into. Why do we not have the normal correlation between capital investment and trade? I do not know the answer. I shall not necessarily press the Minister to say that he knows the answer. It is a puzzle. But it suggests that perhaps our businesses, as the noble Viscount said in his introduction, do not see the kind of opportunities that are there.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I may, indeed, be wrong on this matter. But in general it is because the capital investment over there is into the raw material, natural resource industries that we require over here, as we have no natural resources of our own. Certainly that should be compensated for by increased British exports, but we are not very successful.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take the point. Perhaps we have made a mistake in interpreting South America too much as a land of natural resources and not as a land to which we can sell goods and services and in which we can help in the production of goods and services. That is something that I should like to happen. Indeed, the Germans, French, the Spanish and others are trading with those countries. Why aren't we?
I am an ignoramus in this field and I accept the remarks made by noble Lords about how supportive the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

1063
have been. That is fine. However, I sometimes wonder whether we are playing a fair game in terms of free competition and free trade. I wonder whether covert subsidies and covert support are being provided by other nations whereas we, because of our principles, are not engaging in that. Perhaps we are losing markets because we are too honest and straightforward. We have certainly seen that happen in other areas of competition, so I hope that we can look at that point.
I have said that I do not believe in poking my nose into another country's affairs. I truly believe that. I think that in the end people have to make their own decisions on such matters and that it is not for us to pontificate on what other people are doing. I know that many noble Lords find that difficult to resist. However, if I were advising the South Americans, I would suggest that they proceed on a step-by-step basis and put in place whatever free trading arrangements they can bilaterally between themselves and then within their own continent, rather than assume that plunging into the grandiose Free Trade Area of the Americas is the easiest thing to do. In other words, I would adopt a practical approach to these matters.
I do not say that to denigrate the United States. I am an alumnus graduate of Princeton University and no one is a stronger supporter of the United States than myself or is more aware of the leadership that the US has given the advanced industrialised world in our lifetime. However, if I were a South American, I would still want to go my own way first rather than say, "Let the US do it first and we will follow". I think that that is immensely important.
I do not have a great deal more to offer although I should like to venture one other comment which relates to cause and effect. It is a quasi-political point. I do not want to tell the South Americans how to run their affairs, but I truly believe—and I think that the events of the past decade show this—that, on the whole, trade is conducive to democracy. In the end, it works and if you get used to trading with foreigners, you get used to having a more open society. I think that that will apply to even Cuba in due course. We have seen some pretty awful things—not just there, but everywhere—but I remain an optimist. I believe that as long as we do not interfere excessively in other countries' affairs, as long as we are willing to trade there and as long as our Government, of whatever political complexion, are supportive of those who wish to trade, there will be a happy ending in South America.
Therefore, I simply repeat my thanks to the noble Viscount and hope that the next time that we debate South America we shall be able to say that our share of its trade has increased considerably.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity provided by my noble friend Lord Montgomery to develop the impact of the proposal to develop a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Like all of your Lordships, I know how much of his time my noble friend devotes to discussing the development of the Americas. With his strong presidential connections with
1064
Canning House, my noble friend has been instrumental in bringing the issue of the economic and political prospects in the Americas, and particularly in Latin America, to a wider audience. This debate is particularly timely in view of the very welcome and, I believe, successful visit by the Vice-President of Bolivia last week. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that it is also timely that the debate should he held a week before President Zedillo visits the United Kingdom.
We welcome any new proposals that will lead to the removal of barriers to international trade and investment. We believe that by liberalising trade we create wealth and make economies more efficient. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because we also believe that open trade relationships create political stability. The example of Europe since 1945 shows that a commitment to open markets and regional integration can bring lasting peace to areas which have previously suffered terribly from the scourges of war and political upheaval. The wide acceptance throughout the world of the benefits of open economies is underlined by the commitment that has been made to the GATT and now to the World Trade Organisation, the principles of which have given and will continue to give tremendous gains for our economies from the reduction of trade barriers and from the application of the principles of most-favoured-nation and of national treatment.
The desire to create a FTAA is therefore to be welcomed. It illustrates that the case for markets that are open to trade and investment is widely accepted in that region. It is the natural result of a number of developments in recent years to create free trading groups within the region, for example the North America Free Trade Area members have agreed to remove all tariffs and a wide range of other trade barriers by 2008; and Mercosur's members have agreed to remove all barriers to intra-regional trade by 1999 and to achieve full convergence on a common external tariff by 2006.
The commitment made by the American nations to create a free trade area is to be warmly admired for its ambition. The only point on which I disagree with my noble friend Lord Montgomery is on the population figures. As we understand it, the total population of the region today is not 750 million, but some 850 million. A move to trade and investment without tariff barriers in the region would create huge dynamic effects that would spur wealth creation and promote cross-border trade and investment. It would offer opportunities not just for those inside the region, but also for any business selling its goods and services in that market, and for any business that is an investor in that market. The region has already come a long way in recent years in the development of open economies.
Much of the debate has been focused on the Latin American countries. Those countries have made remarkable changes to the way in which they operate their economies. My noble friend Lady Hooper was right to highlight the changes that have been made in the oil and gas industries.

1065
As yet, the FTAA is in a very early stage of development. Its membership would cover a huge variety of economies—from among the richest nations on earth to some of the poorest. Income per head in the US is about 25,000 dollars: compare that with a per capita income for Bolivia of 800 dollars. The FTAA nations have a long way to go to establish how their free trade area would work, and in certain areas they are still—not unnaturally—working on the groundrules. Furthermore, the FTAA will require sustained political commitment from the region's governments if it is to come to fruition over the long period being allowed for negotiations.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Montgomery and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who indicated that the short-term prospects for the FTAA may be limited by the proximity of the presidential election in the United States. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right that there seems to be little sign that the enthusiasm of the Latin American nations for regional integration is waning.
Notwithstanding that there may be short-term problems, there is every reason for United Kingdom businesses to maintain their efforts to penetrate the markets of North and South America. The United Kingdom's strong investment position in the region means that our companies should be in a good position to take advantage of the liberalisation that is now taking place. We have, of course a strong position in the North American markets, particularly in the United States, based on long-standing trading and business links. It is our aim to strengthen that position even further. As for Latin America, it is our aim to ensure that businesses in the UK recognise how much the region has changed. In 1982 when Mexico defaulted on its debt and the debt crisis plunged that continent into what became known as the lost decade, who could have foreseen the remarkable recent developments, including growth in the region of nearly 3 per cent. per annum during the early 1990s?
Some might say of course that compared with average annual growth of some 6 per cent. during the 1970s that is not impressive. But what is important is that growth was not achieved by sheltering industry behind high tariff barriers. When that was the case, it was not sustainable. High periods of growth alternated with periods of excessive inflation, with several countries experiencing the pains of hyper inflation. The new policies of open markets, internal deregulation, privatisation and fiscal prudence, while painful in the short term, provide a much more solid foundation for future growth. In 1990 four countries in Latin America had four-figure inflation. By last year all these countries had inflation under 20 per cent.
On the political front too, the change has been remarkable. Apart from Cuba—there are changes under way there—democracy is universal and has been further consolidated by a series of peaceful and open elections, most recently in Argentina, Peru and Guatemala. Civil war has been effectively eradicated in Central America.
That change in economic philosophy was evident in the increasingly positive role which the Latin American countries played during the Uruguay Round negotiations
1066
which led to the creation of the World Trade Organisation. The positive spirit in which the negotiations were generally carried out was greatly enhanced by the recognition of Latin American countries that there is an absolute economic benefit to be gained from market reform and the removal of trade barriers. The unilateral action taken by many Latin American countries during the late 1980s to reduce tariffs and open markets contributed greatly to the spirit in which the Uruguay Round was conducted and ultimately to the wide-ranging result which was achieved.
The Mexican crisis last year and its after-shocks brought difficult times, but I believe that we arc now sailing into calmer waters, with belief in the fundamental correctness of the policy of openness unscathed. Indeed the enthusiasm of the Latin American countries for new regional integration agreements suggests that they have emerged from this period with their commitment to open markets and the FTAA made all the more robust.
While we welcome those dynamic regional developments, I must stress that we continue to believe that a truly open world trading system is best guaranteed by a strong World Trade Organisation which has a wide membership, and in which those members have made commitments to maintain open access to their trading partners. We therefore believe most strongly that the development of free trade areas like the FTAA must be in line with the rules that the WTO membership has set itself. Those rules permit the development of preferential trading areas as long as those areas do not raise trade barriers against nations outside, and as long as they create trade, rather than simply divert trade flows from one place to another.
A number of points were raised during the debate and I shall do my best to answer them. At one time my noble friend Lord Selsdon indicated that Her Majesty's Government were obstructive in their approach to trade. If he wishes to visit Cuba he will not merely go with a warm blessing, but I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Young and others will be only too pleased to assist him in making the visit.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will forgive me, I have been to Cuba many times. I led three trade missions there at a time when Her Majesty's Government felt that it would be deemed inappropriate for them to be represented.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to take a further trip, on this occasion he will know that he goes with the warm blessing of all parts of Her Majesty's Government.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lady Young on the importance of our relationship with Cuba. Perhaps I may say as carefully as I can that the UK enjoys normal trade relations with Cuba. It is our policy to support the efforts of UK firms to participate in the growing market as Cuba proceeds with reforms of its markets. As my noble friend Lady Young indicated, my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Science and Technology, has visited there twice.

1067
Another important example of the improvement is the coming into force of investment, promotion and protection agreements.
We shall continue to play a full part in strengthening EU relations with the Caribbean, particularly in building the capacities of the private sector of the smaller island economies, and assisting with the diversification of their trade.
My noble friend Lady Hooper referred to EU support for industrial co-operation with Latin America. The DTI is actively promoting the opportunities under the EU programme for UK firms to become involved, for example, through the EC investment partner scheme which has a strong focus on SMEs to which my noble friend referred.
My noble friend Lord Pearson was concerned that EU support for Mercosur might be unattractive or unacceptable, certainly to him. It largely takes the form of technical assistance in areas such as administration and standards, where adopting European norms can be of direct benefit to our exporters. EU capital finance for Latin America provided by the European Investment Bank does so on competitive, commercial terms.
I agree also with my noble friend Lady Hooper that education and training should be a priority. We can play an important part. The British Council, as I am sure she knows, is very active in the region and will continue to be so. Your Lordships may be interested to know also that important education missions last year to Argentina and Brazil were led by my noble friend Lord Henley who was accompanied on one occasion by my noble friend Lady Perry.
Drugs are a real problem. We continue to urge close co-operation. We provide training and detection equipment and the Prime Minister and President Chirac in Madrid last December set up a working party to see how we might achieve yet further co-operation.
So far as concerns a conference, I am aware of the noble Viscount's proposal, and while I cannot offer him a clear decision yet, officials within the DTI and the Foreign Office are giving such a proposal serious consideration.
On the broader issue which came through on a number of occasions from my noble friend Lord Selsdon and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, yes, indeed, we understand clearly that it should not be a matter just of exports—investment has a crucial part to play. Indeed the DTI's trade promotion policy and, in particular, the link into the Latin America Campaign has the issue of investment as a feature.
The markets of the Americas are extremely important for British business. In 1994, 16 per cent. of UK visible exports went to those countries. We are already, as has been observed, major investors in the region which takes some 37 per cent. of our total foreign direct investment. Regional integration will undoubtedly create many new opportunities. Just within Mercosur, for example, integration will give rise to substantial opportunities in infrastructure, transport and energy. The value of infrastructure projects alone already at the feasibility stage, has been put at some 10 billion US dollars.
1068
We are committed to working for open markets between the EU and the Americas. In that context, I wish to note our full support for the EU's work with the US and Canada on trans-atlantic trade regulations and the new generation of agreements between the EU and Latin America, such as that signed last year with Mercosur. I noted with gratification that that met with the approval of the noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord McNally.
It is however a fact that while our investment performance in Latin America is strong, and trade and investment with North America is healthy, regrettably UK exporters have not hitherto given the attention to the Latin American markets that I believe they deserve. It is for this reason that my department launched the Link into Latin America campaign. This campaign and the continuing North America Now campaign will, I hope, help to ensure that UK business is ready for the many new economic opportunities to which the FTAA will give rise.
Wherever we look, we see evidence of the countries of Latin America joining the US and Canada on the world stage. I have already noted the valuable role played by them in the Uruguay Round. We have also seen Mexico joining the OECD, Chile joining APEC and negotiating to join NAFTA, and Argentina keen to join the OECD. There is co-operation over non-proliferation issues and participation in UN peace-keeping.
These changes bring new opportunities for Britain. We once enjoyed a predominant political and economic position in Latin America. We need to work to recover it. The British Government are actively responding to developments. In 1992 John Major made the first ever visit by a Prime Minister to Latin America. The Foreign Secretary has visited three times in the past four years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that, as he might have expected, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his exuberant fashion very much enjoyed his visit to South America during the Christmas and New Year period. He returned, as do many of us following such visits, with a new appreciation of the genuine warmth and friendship that they would wish to extend towards us. There is a welcome regular and growing flow of Ministers from Latin America to the United Kingdom. Those of us in the DTI make regular visits to Latin America. Indeed, I hope soon to visit Venezuela, Columbia and many of the other Latin American countries within the coming year.
I conclude by thanking the noble Viscount for giving us this opportunity to debate this important issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, honestly said, far too often in matters of public debate in the United Kingdom the importance of Latin America is forgotten. So, too, are the problems and the importance of the Caribbean. I believe that this debate has usefully brought a clear focus on just those issues.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have had a fascinating discussion. As I anticipated at the beginning, there have been diverse contributions

1069
from all quarters of the House. In fact, so much so that I have learnt a great deal, as I might have expected, about the different aspects of the problem. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and encourage him to visit the continent with great frequency and to ensure that his ministerial colleagues continue to do likewise. I am sorry that he cannot be more positive about the proposed conference. I hope that he and his colleagues in Whitehall will reach a decision soon as I know that such events take a great deal of planning and foresight if the proper speakers are to be assembled.
It is a great temptation to comment on all the contributions that have been made but time does not allow. I wish to make only one or two comments on particular points. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his comments on the increase in the number of commercial posts in Latin America. One of the problems of the past was that there was a shortage of diplomats in that part of the world. The propensity of the Treasury to make cuts in the smallest and most efficient department in Whitehall, the Foreign Office, is wholly deplorable. That is a welcome reversal of the trend and I hope that it will continue.
I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, spoke of the European arrangements and initiatives in Latin America. That is important and it is a subject which Canning House embraces. It pays particular attention to European Union relations with Latin America.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, needs no education in economics but I am glad to welcome him to this new area. His point about languages was particularly important. Spanish and Portuguese are the key languages but the noble Lord may not be aware that after Mexico the United States is the most important Spanish-speaking country in the world. More people speak Spanish as the first language in the United States than in Spain. That is a remarkable state of affairs and shows how the language is spreading. It is a welcome extension and—dare I say it?—another issue embraced by Canning House.
It was encouraging to hear several noble Lords endorse the notion that the United States' policy towards Cuba is flawed and that we should trade more actively with that country and encourage others to do likewise. Trade missions are very welcome and perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Selsdon that in 1974 I accompanied Lord Walston on the first trade mission to Cuba since Castro came to power. He had been in office for 14 years and on that occasion he made his first ever visit to the British Embassy. I gather that since then he has visited the embassy on many occasions but it was a welcome initiative. Our relations with Cuba are excellent.
One of the factors that has emerged from the debate is that there are a number of sub-regional trading arrangements already in existence. They were mentioned by a number of noble Lords. It is perhaps through the convergence of those sub-regional arrangements that the whole of that vast area will develop. However it develops and however long it takes, it is a vital initiative and it is extremely important that
1070
we in this country are able to take cognisance of it, pay proper attention to it and make use of the opportunities that this vast new development will present. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Northern Ireland: Report of International Body on Arms Decommissioning
5.18 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Northern Ireland and the report of the International Body on Arms Decommissioning made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"The key to progress in Northern Ireland is confidence—confidence to enable the parties to sit down together without threat of force. The retention of arms by the paramilitaries on both sides is the biggest single factor in holding back that confidence. It has so far prevented the holding of all-party talks.
"That is one of the reasons why we and the Irish Government established the international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue as one track of the twin tracks initiative John Bruton and I launched last November.
"The Body's remit was to identify and advise on acceptable methods of verifiable decommissioning, and to report on the commitment of the paramilitaries to work constructively to achieve that. We set the Body the challenging target of reporting by mid-January. I am extremely grateful to Senator Mitchell, and his colleagues, for the energy and determination with which they have completed their task.
"The Body's main conclusions are: that the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations has nearly universal support and must continue to be a principal objective; that to reach an agreed political settlement and take the gun out of politics, all parties should commit themselves to, and honour, six principles embodying the path of democracy and non-violence—those principles include the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, the renunciation of force and the threat of force, agreement to abide peacefully by whatever agreement is finally reached, and an end to so-called punishment killings and beatings; that there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of illegal arms to work constructively to achieve full and verifiable decommissioning as part of the process of all-party negotiations. The Body makes a series of recommendations on the modalities of decommissioning of illegal arms. It emphatically declares that there is no equivalence between such arms and those held by the security forces. It rightly emphasises the need for independent verification; and that other confidence-building measures are needed,

1071
such as an end to targeting of potential victims by the paramilitaries, information on missing persons and the return of those previously intimidated out of their homes.
"The Body also records its conclusion, on the basis of its discussions, that the paramilitaries will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiations. The House will note that the Body did not conclude that they cannot decommission but that they will not. The House will draw its own conclusions. Although the Body makes no formal recommendation on this point, it suggests an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations.
"The Government welcome the Body's endorsement of the seriousness of the decommissioning issue. We welcome and fully endorse the six principles set out. We call on all parties to do the same.
"If all concerned were to accept those principles, and honour them, as the International Body also rightly emphasises, that would be a significant step forward. Even more significant would be if, in addition, all parties, particularly Sinn Fein, also joined the two Governments in supporting the wide principles of consent set out in the Downing Street declaration.
"The Government also welcome the Body's broad recommendations on the modalities of the decommissioning process. We are ready to implement them. It is now for those in possession of illegal arms to say whether they will accept and act on them. We look forward to an early and definitive response from the paramilitaries on both sides.
"We welcome, too, the emphasis on other confidence-building measures. If the paramilitaries give up their present practice of keeping themselves ready for a return to action, that will be a most welcome sign of real commitment to peaceful methods. Otherwise, gun-law continues to hang over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland.
"There is therefore much in the report that we can welcome and endorse. But the practical problem remains: how to bring all the parties together. Self-evidently the best way to generate the necessary confidence is for the paramilitaries to make a start to the decommissioning process. We see no reason why they should not.
"There can be no justification for the maintenance of private armies by those who claim to be committed to exclusively peaceful means. Opinion polls in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have shown overwhelming public support in both communities for decommissioning before talks. We shall, therefore, keep up the pressure for an immediate start to that process.
"However, I am not prepared to accept that any one group should, through its intransigence, stand in the way of peace and a comprehensive settlement for the people of Northern Ireland. We will not be deflected
1072
from our aim. It is now apparent that there may well he another way forward, consistent with the basic principles that we have always adhered to.
"One of the confidence-building measures taken up by the International Body is the idea of an election. The Body made clear that a broadly acceptable elective process, with an appropriate mandate and within the three-strand structure, could contribute to the building of confidence.
"The Government believe that such an elective process offers a viable alternative direct route to the confidence necessary to bring about all-party negotiations. In that context, it is possible to imagine decommissioning and such negotiations being taken forward in parallel.
"The election proposal originated in Northern Ireland and, as recent opinion polls have shown, has widespread cross-community support there. A number of parties, including those led by the honourable Members for Upper Bann and North Antrim, as well as the Alliance Party, have put forward proposals for some form of elected body as a means of getting all parties talking together, even if the paramilitaries persist in their refusal to decommission prior to negotiation.
"It is true that other parties have registered their concerns. They will certainly need to be addressed. We will discuss urgently with all the parties how to overcome them. But in a democratic system like ours I cannot see how elections could be regarded by any of the parties as a side issue or as a block to progress.
"As the Mitchell report says: 'Elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will'. So let me make it quite clear to the House that we are ready to introduce legislation, and to seek both Houses' urgent approval for it, in order to allow an elective process to go ahead as soon as may be practicable. I would hope that that will attract support right across the House.
"To sum up, we believe that, in the light of the Mitchell report, there are two ways in which all-party negotiations can now be taken forward. Both are fully consistent with the six principles set out in the report.
"The first is for the paramilitaries to make a start to decommissioning before all-party negotiations. They can—if they will. If not, the second is to secure a democratic mandate for all-party negotiations through elections specially for that purpose.
"There are two routes to all-party negotiations and to decommissioning. The choice between them is ultimately for the parties themselves. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have every right to expect that one or other of those routes will be taken and taken soon.
"For our part we, together with the Irish Government, will intensify our discussions with all the parties. I intend to meet the Taoiseach again in the middle of February to review progress.
"The people of Northern Ireland are enjoying today's peace. They want it to be permanent. They also want and deserve political progress. It is time to

1073
put old enmities aside and to allow the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives once again to have a normal say in their future and their affairs.
"The proposals that I have put forward today require all concerned to take risks for peace. We have done so before and will do so again, consistent with our principles. That is what is needed if we are to build on the achievements of the past two years.
"Let us never forget that we are dealing here with the lives of innocent men, women and children. We are dealing with their future and the future of Northern Ireland. In the end, our obligation as politicians is to the people we govern.
"I pledge that I will leave no stone unturned to deliver to the people of Northern Ireland on a permanent basis the precious privilege of peace that they have now enjoyed for 17 months."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place this afternoon. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will want to join me in welcoming the Mitchell Report. I start by paying tribute to the work undertaken by Senator Mitchell and the other members of the commission which has produced this valuable and helpful report. They did a great deal of work and they did it extremely quickly. The House and indeed the country should be grateful to them.
The publication of this report is indeed a significant contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. I would hope that all parties recognise its value and vote together on the basis of the framework which it provides. I agree very much with what the noble Viscount said; namely, that the British and Irish Governments must continue to co-operate and to liaise closely on developing the peace process further. We on these Benches support strongly the six principles underpinning the report. They contain a great deal to recommend them. I hope that the different parties to the conflict will respond positively. I particularly endorse the need for a commitment to democratic and peaceful means of resolving political issues. One of the report's main proposals seeks to bring an end to the so-called "punishment" beatings and executions. I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House will welcome what the report has to say about that. These acts are totally unjustifiable and indeed in reality they are terrorism under another cloak.
The essential matter now—as the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal said—is to build the confidence necessary for all-party talks to take place. The importance of this report is that it points to alternative routes towards building that confidence. I share the view that prior decommissioning would perhaps be the better way but the report concludes not that it cannot be done but that it will not be done. The report therefore suggests an elective route as an acceptable alternative. I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can say a little more about how the Government see that. Is
1074
it intended that the assembly resulting from such elections should have any negotiating role, or is it to have merely an advisory role? As regards timing, Mr. Trimble said this afternoon in another place that he would hope that these elections could take place as early as April or May. I wonder whether that sort of timescale is the one that the Government envisage for this part of the process.
I wish to comment on the position of my party. We have consistently pursued a bipartisan approach in relation to the peace process in Northern Ireland. I should therefore make it perfectly clear now that we, for our part, would assist in the passage of any necessary legislation to enable this elective process to take place.
The report refers to verification of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say a little more about that? Can he perhaps explain a little further the Government's thinking on how to move forward in this verification area? Any of us who have taken part in any negotiations at international level will know that verification is as important, or almost as important, as the actual negotiation and agreement itself. We on these Benches welcome this report. It points to an important way forward but in the end, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, it will all depend upon the parties in Northern Ireland being prepared to accept that negotiations are preferable to continued conflict. The end result must also be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House confirm again the Government's commitment to a referendum on the final terms of any settlement that emerges? The search for peace in Northern Ireland is inevitably a long and difficult process. For our part, we offer it our full support.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the Statement is often opaque but as in my view it uses its opaqueness to end up more or less in the right place I am not disposed to complain too much about that. Her Majesty's Government have in my view had somewhat too rigid a position about arms decommissioning before talks. As a result their Northern Ireland policy—one of the few in which Mr. Major has shown much more courage than party tactics—has shown recent signs of running into the sands.
Ex-Senator Mitchell and his coadjutors—I prefer to call them that than the somewhat ominous collective term of "the Body", which runs as a heavy but I hope no longer appropriate refrain throughout the Statement—have not surprisingly endorsed that view. I think they have produced a good, sensible and speedy report which we welcome. Senator Mitchell has conspicuously not claimed too much for it. He has not proclaimed that he has a golden key and the guarantee to permanent peace in Northern Ireland, but I would certainly say that a rejection of the Mitchell Report by the British Government would have been a guarantee against such a permanent peace. The Prime Minister has not done that. Indeed, under his smokescreen he has done almost the reverse, and I welcome that.

1075
The six principles offer much to the Unionist community and I believe that it may appreciate that. I certainly hope that will be the case. We, for our part, particularly welcome the opening up of the prospect of an electoral process. We lay more stress on our hopes for the future than on a too rigid but not very productive analysis of the understandable ambiguities of the Prime Minister's Statement.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for the most constructive, generous and, if I may say so, extremely helpful reactions that they have given to my right honourable friend's Statement today. Once again I wish to echo the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has paid to Senator Mitchell and his coadjutors for what I agree is a significant contribution to the peace process.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, underlined most helpfully—if I may say so again—the importance of the continued co-operation between the two national governments. I was particularly pleased for the support that both noble Lords gave to the six principles. I wish to emphasise how important it is for all interested parties—the terrorist organisations on both sides of the divide—to take up the implicit challenge in the report of the six principles and not only to accept them in principle but also to take the advice proffered in the report that those principles should be—in the word that the Senator used—honoured.
I was also struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that punishment beatings were not only unjustifiable but were also terrorism under another cloak. That must be right. I was also pleased that the noble Lord welcomed the proposition that we should look for alternative routes in order to keep the peace process going.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. We are not, of course, suggesting that any elected body should have a prescribed form as of now. It is important that the two tracks which the Governments on both 'sides of the Irish Sea adopted during the course of last year should be used fully in driving this peace process forward, and in particular that we should now use the political track to see what would be possible, and indeed what the modalities should be if we are to be able to explore constructively how the idea of an elected body could be taken forward. It is by no means clear that all parties would accept such an idea. However, I think it is at least cheering that so many of the interested parties have given a welcome in principle to this. It is now for the political track of the twin track approach to be used to see whether we can agree on the form the assembly should take, what its functions should be, what its numbers should be, how it should operate, the method of election and so on.
This is all to play for. I do not believe it is right that I should give any steer at this stage as to how that may happen. It is enough that there is an increasing interest in this regard. The fact that there is an interest underlines the importance that the communities in Northern Ireland attach to the peace process and that it should not he allowed to fail.
1076
As far as the timescale is concerned, we will do our best to enter into the negotiations as swiftly as possible. If there is sufficient agreement to enable us to introduce the necessary legislation we will do so as soon as possible. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his undertaking to play a full and co-operative part in making sure that legislation is passed as speedily as possible.
It is worth emphasising that verification and methods of decommissioning are clearly set out in the report, both in terms of flavour and the possibilities that may be discussed. The Government have absolutely no difficulties with the possibilities envisaged in the report. We are entirely flexible, as long as we can be sure that adequate verification will be put in place. Noble Lords who have had a chance to read the report will know that one of the possibilities envisaged is that the terrorist organisations destroy their own weapons. We are happy to envisage such a possibility as long as adequate verification can be put in place. I believe that to be evidence of how constructive we wish to be.
I turn to the final question put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Government commitment to a referendum is still in place. From the very beginning of this process my right honourable friend gave an undertaking relating to what was known as the triple lock. Any final agreement would be subject to the approval of parties, people and Parliament. The "people" element will be evidenced by a referendum. If there is an agreement we will proceed as swiftly as we can to implement it, and a referendum will be part of it. The triple lock is still in place.
I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with the greatest of respect and, very often, amusement. I particularly listen to the noble Lord on matters Irish. One of the most interesting and gripping volumes that I have read—I confess that I have not quite finished it—is the noble Lord's biography of Gladstone. In that biography the mastery which he displayed in his study of Asquith is exceeded, if that is possible. Since Ireland plays so great a part in the latter section of that biography the temptation not to read today's papers but to concentrate on the noble Lord's book is not quite such a dereliction of duty as it might otherwise have been last night.
I am pleased that the noble Lord broadly welcomes what is proposed. If I have a small quibble, I believe that the noble Lord is a little unfair to suggest that the Government have adopted a rigid position, particularly when one considers that the latest opinion poll in the Province suggests that as high a proportion as 83 per cent. of the population believes that there should be some prior decommissioning before the terrorist organisations are admitted to all-party talks. I will not go back over that ground again. I merely express gratitude to the noble Lord for his intervention in our debates, with his considerable expertise on this subject, and the fact that he welcomes the electoral process as a way forward, particularly when I know that his party has been a keen supporter of it from the moment it was proposed.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I would be grateful if my noble friend would comment on paragraph 34 of the report, which reads:
"The parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations, rather than before or after as the parties now urge. Such an approach represents a compromise."
That is a clear recommendation by Senator Mitchell and his body, to use their own phrase. I thought from the tone of my noble friend's Statement that the Government were disposed to accept it. However, since he has not been quite explicit on the point and it is obviously of very great importance, I would be most grateful if he would comment.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble friend. The compromise that the Mitchell body suggests in paragraph 34 et sequentia is a matter that can arise, for instance in the event of all parties signing up to the idea of an elected body. Whether the elected body delegates some of its number to enter into all-party talks, which is one possibility, or does so itself—whatever device emerges for agreement—one of the matters to which it will have to address itself at a very early stage, as Senator Mitchell's committee makes perfectly clear, is the basis on which decommissioning should happen. It is possible that all parties will find the basis set out in paragraph 34 and following, but that will be for discussion at the time. It is worth underlining in reply to my noble friend that at no point does Senator Mitchell suggest that decommissioning should occur after agreement. I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that point.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the report. I appreciate the effort and endeavours of the Mitchell team. I believe that the report will prove to be a useful document in future.
There has been no breakthrough on the decommissioning of arms but, thank goodness, there is still peace, albeit an uneasy one. All of us must be seriously concerned that the Provisional IRA still recruit, train, carry out dummy bomb runs to keep the militant element busy and kill and beat up their own kinsfolk to control and dominate their territories. Yet not one gun or one pound of Semtex has been surrendered, which is the crux of the deadlock. Is the Minister aware that, because of the absence of an agreement on the Washington third principle and the Government's repeated stand that there must be a token decommissioning before all-party talks can begin, the Government must painstakingly carry on and that the Mitchell Report is the base on which to found political and constitutional compromises in the future?
I was delighted to hear of the positive step that in the Government's mind there is now a possibility of legislation in both Houses—I say that it will be supported by all the major parties—a possibility of democratic elections and a democratically elected assembly in the Province. That will receive the blessing of both Houses and will get a speedy passage.
1078
Is the Provisional Sinn Fein prepared to tread the path of democracy? What are the real prospects of an all-party assembly? Some bilateral and trilateral party talks have taken place on these matters, and I believe that they could be expanded upon.
Finally, is the noble Viscount aware that there arc enough proposals in the report, especially the six principles, to encourage a continuation of talks—searching for the compromises, allied with confidence-building measures which we hope will create circumstances and conditions to encourage the eventual decommissioning of all terrorist arms.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord whose record in the Province is well known to all your Lordships. He will have observed, I am sure, that Senator Mitchell specifically mentions the point that he first made. Indeed, it is clearly set out in one of the six principles to which he referred. Principle F states:
"To urge that "punishment" killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions".
Therefore it is perfectly clear that the senator and his two coadjutors would wholly agree with the noble Lord's remarks on that subject.
It might be worth reminding your Lordships of the Washington third principle: in order to test the practical arrangements and to demonstrate good faith, there should be the decommissioning of some arms as a tangible confidence-building measure and to signal the start of the process. It is worth bearing in mind that we are not talking about anything more than a clear signal of intent.
We stick to the Washington third principle unless there is an alternative available which satisfies the parties who are interested in this. I am pleased to hear that the Unionist parties have certainly in principle accepted that that is a possible alternative. Indeed my right honourable friend made it clear that the idea for an elected body originated in the Province itself.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for an elected body. I should point out that we should be wary about calling this body an "assembly". As at present envisaged, this is an elected body whose function is clearly to give electoral decency and authority to the negotiations. If it is an assembly, it rather implies that it might have something to do with legislation, or indeed administration, which at this stage it certainly would not.
The noble Lord finally asked the all important question: are the Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA prepared to tread the path of democracy? That is the question that we must all continue to ask—and to ask insistently. Indeed, it is a question which Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues also asked through the means of the six principles that they have initiated. It is for all of us to continue to ask that question and to express the fervent hope that they will be able to give an answer which is strongly in the affirmative and indeed for them, in the words of the senator, to honour that acceptance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware of the regard in which we hold Senator Mitchell, and

1079
the gratitude that we owe him for his intervention. I hope that he is also aware of the strong support and admiration which we have for his right honourable friend and the whole of the government team involved in conducting an extraordinarily difficult and delicate operation. We welcome the co-operation which they have had from other quarters.
At the beginning of the Statement, my noble friend pointed out that the principal obstacle on one track was the existence of weapons which were not being decommissioned. We welcome the existence of the other track to try to get round that. However, the weapons remain a matter of great concern. As it happens, we have had recently an extraordinarily successful amnesty for knives in this country. I wonder whether the principle of amnesty is present in what is now in mind. If so, is it to be extended to people'? If it is extended to people, can he reassure us that it will not be extended to those who are known as killers in the terrorist cause?
My noble friend is assured of the support of all people of goodwill on all sides of the House—not that I am entitled to speak for them—and elsewhere, to expedite the legislation necessary to bring into being the new body. We recognise the importance of not giving it a handle which suggests that it will have a legislative role. However, if that body can encourage people to talk and to use words instead of weapons it will be enormously useful. That is a classic way towards peace.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I think that I can give him the assurance that he needs. If there is going to be decommissioning of weapons, it seems at least logical that those who hand in those weapons, or who co-operate in the decommissioning, should enjoy an amnesty from the consequences normally visited on those who possess illegal weapons. But we should draw a very clear distinction between people who are taking part in activities which lead to decommissioning and those who have taken part in terrorist crimes during the course of the recent troubles. I hope that I shall carry the House with me when I say that Her Majesty's Government certainly have no intention, as my noble friend opined, of extending that amnesty, for instance to those who have committed terrorist murders in the past.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the rest of his remarks which will give great encouragement to those of us who support my right honourable friend in this very difficult task.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I shall attempt not to delay the business of the House. However, I am sure that the House would like to hear a Northern Ireland voice; and there are a few in the House at present.
The report has had a warm, helpful and constructive welcome in the House this evening. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he presented the report and his subsequent replies to a number of questions raised. I feel that they were constructive and helpful from the Northern Ireland point of view.
1080
I also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for their contributions. The fact that a body of opinion here is solidly behind this very important report will he well received in Northern Ireland.
We have to recognise that the present impasse results from a tremendous amount of mistrust—mistrust by both sides of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. The Unionists fear that talks without prior decommissioning would be at the point of a gun; and the Republicans fear that decommissioning in advance of talks would be seen as a total surrender.
We have to remind ourselves that this is an international body. The Mitchell Report offers an opportunity to break out of this apparent irresolvable dilemma. It suggests using the process of decommissioning to build the necessary confidence and to take it one step at a time during the negotiations. That is an important part of the report of which note will be taken. There will be no seeking to have matters accepted in one go. It will be a step-by-step process.
All concerned—there are sometimes many sides involved in some of the issues—should take the initial step. All in Northern Ireland should help to take the initial step in the progress towards decommissioning. It must be a step at a time.
I endorse the Mitchell principles in order to create the atmosphere needed for further steps in a progressive pattern of maintaining trust and confidence throughout the community. Trust and confidence throughout the community are very important in this respect. It must be recognised by all parties that the normalisation of policing must be at the core of the building of confidence. Policing has not been mentioned, but I see it as absolutely necessary. I feel sure from what I know of talks with the RUC that there is the utmost constructive co-operation by the RUC and, where necessary, the Garda Siochana. We all expect that there will be allegations by party spokesmen of political opportunism and shenanigans. However, I feel sure that the community will see through any of those shortsighted expressed views, and that the larger community in Northern Ireland will see the need for peace among the people in Northern Ireland, as the Leader of the House said.
I will close my remarks by saying that praise ought to be given for the generous tribute of the commission to the people of Northern Ireland. It described them as being warm and generous but between themselves they are fearful and antagonistic. My experience is not at the same level, but from what I know of trade union negotiations, employers' wars and disorders, we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Through enshrining that principle, we may look forward to finding a constructive accommodation as regards the needs of people in Northern Ireland.
Again, I thank those who have already spoken as leaders in their own areas in this House, particularly the Leader of the House, for his positive and constructive

1081
answers to the points raised. We would like to see the commission going on to do the job for which it was set up in Northern Ireland.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. His voice and experience bring considerable authority to exchanges in your Lordships' House. The words he said about the importance of confidence are entirely echoed, not only by Senator Mitchell, but also by my right honourable friend.
As regards policing, we share his hope that policing in Northern Ireland can be normalised. It has already changed considerably because of the reduced threat, to which the noble Lord can testify. As he knows, we are engaged in the process of reform. Our aim is plainly to reach a position where the police can operate unarmed and where the make up of the force represents the community balance. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I join the welcome that has been given to the Statement made by the Leader of the House, in particular to his remarks about the possibility of legislation for elections in Northern Ireland. I strongly support that and I believe that he already knows that as Ulster Unionists we support that principle as well. It is much better if one can listen to people speaking because they were elected rather than because they have a few or perhaps many guns hidden away somewhere. Let us try to get down to democratic principles as soon as possible.
I was glad to hear that legislation might come fairly quickly. I should greatly welcome that. I was also glad to hear the Leader of the House say that there would be an amnesty for people in the process of handing in arms. That is right, just as one noble Lord drew the parallel with the handing in of knives in this part of the country. I was also glad to hear that the amnesty would not extend to people who had used arms in a criminal way in the past. That is important.
I find it hard to accept paragraph 34 of the report which suggests that decommissioning could be carried out piecemeal during the course of negotiations. That is even worse than saying, "If we get all we want, we'll hand in our arms". If they are able to say, day by day, "If we get what we want today, you can have a few Semtex bombs and Armalite rifles. If we do better next week, we'll hand in a few more". That is not a democratic way of negotiating and we should not enter into that kind of arrangement.
Paragraph 20.d of the recommendations of the International Body states:
"To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations".
If we accept that paragraph I do not see how anyone can subscribe to that principle if they keep arms.
I believe that everyone in Northern Ireland looks forward to a permanent peace. We must be careful that we recognise the word "permanent" and do not rush into something that will only last for a short time. We must think the matter out properly and listen to everyone who
1082
is concerned. As an Ulster Unionist I say that the Government will receive our full support in any sensible measures to bring about permanent peace.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the 20 minute period is up, but if it were left to this House we could reach an accommodation quite quickly. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said and note his reservations about paragraph 34. However, the constructive way in which he and the leader of his party have responded is an extremely good omen for the future.

Motor Sport Industry
6.7 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever rose to call attention to the United Kingdom motor sport industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to focus on the contributions of motor sport to the economy in this centenary year of the British motor industry. Surprisingly, this is the first time this British success story has been the subject of a full debate in either House of Parliament.
I declare an interest as President—honorary and unpaid—of the Motorsport Industry Association which promotes and protects the interests of the industry and which comprises many of Britain's most influential motor sport companies.
The motor sport industry is an example of what can be achieved when the Government provide the economic environment for it to flourish. We are now the world's acknowledged leader in motor sport innovation—a growth industry which last year generated more than £ 1.3 billion for Britain. Over £700 million of that was accounted for by foreign earnings. Fifty thousand people are now directly employed within British motor sport in small companies as well as major corporations. Three times that number enjoy part-time employment. Probably because no government aid or assistance is received in any form—unlike many other sports—these achievements remain largely unrecognised. Indeed, there are few official statistics or trends available—something the Government need to address as a matter of urgency.
Most of the Formula One teams, with their leading edge technology, are based in this country. Williams, Benetton, McLaren, Tyrrell, Jordan and Arrow bring in over £200 million of overseas sponsorship each year. Jackie Stewart's new team will join them next year and Ford have committed themselves to a multi-million pound investment over five years.
Since 1987, even that proud Italian institution, Ferrari has moved its design and development office here, tapping into the engineering talent in motor racing's established Silicon Valley to the south and west of London where there has been an explosion of independent research and development houses, providing specialist high level technology.

1083
Many of the developments that go into a racing car, such as better engine electronics, field management and lightweight materials, are technologies that can be transferred to road cars to make them more efficient and environmentally friendly. The most American of all motor sport series, the Indy Car Championship, has been dominated by British expertise for years. Indeed, since the inception of the current championship in 1979, an American-built car has won only once—and even that car was designed here. Last year, all 33 cars on the grid in the Indy 500 were designed and built in the United Kingdom.
The most successful Formula One engine of all time is the Ford Cosworth. Between 1967 and 1985 it powered no less than 12 world champions and won 155 races, including the famous victory for James Hunt in the Hesketh Ford at the Dutch Grand Prix. An all-new Ford Cosworth engine powered Michael Schumacher to his first Drivers' World Championship in 1994 and will be in Jackie Stewart's car next year. This engine has also dominated the Indy Car series for 10 years. Cosworth is based in Northamptonshire, the same county as Ilmor, which also builds winning Chevrolet engines for Indy racing, as well as Mercedes-badged units for the McLaren Grand Prix team.
The tremendous growth of the British Touring Car Championship is an example of how promoters have recognised the needs of the public for a series that provides close racing in cars with which they can identify. The series is attracting record crowds and commands huge international TV viewership, and some of the world's most successful industrial corporations turn to Britain to run and build their competition cars. BMW is moving its motor sport division here from Munich. Its chairman said,
"The UK offers us the infrastructure, component suppliers, skills and more flexible overtime we need in order to be successful in touring car sport".
Rallying is also increasing in popularity, and British technology and management is regarded as the best in the world. Over the past few years, most of the world's top rally teams have been run from the United Kingdom. However, the current restriction of rallying to private roads and tracks is significantly more limited in this country than elsewhere, and runs a risk of undermining the sport in the longer term. I should like to see this country fall in line with the rest of Europe by giving local authorities the powers, subject to due process, to close public roads for rallies, hill climbs and trials, and possibly even races. I hope my noble friend will give me some assurance on this point.
Complacency is the biggest threat to the industry. We face an ever-increasing challenge from overseas. A classic example is the British Formula Three Championship, which is now dominated by Italian-built cars, whereas three years ago it was 100 per cent. British.
What new policy developments can the Government consider to help the industry build on its current success and level of exports and encourage more inward investment? First, I very much hope that they will recognise motor sport as an industry in its own right. The absence of any British motor sport knighthood
1084
would seem to reinforce its lack of recognition. Furthermore, until that happens, British companies will be slow to come forward with sponsorship—the life-blood of the industry.
Secondly, the industry needs one contact point in the Government. That is essential, not only for motor sport companies, but also for the governing body, which needs someone to whom it can turn when political or diplomatic help is needed, particularly when it relates to European legislation. The president of the HA tells me that other countries, particularly France and Italy, are much better organised in this way. May I suggest that this is a role that my noble friend the Minister would he well qualified to fill? I am aware of his great interest in this subject since his days as a marshal in the 1960s.
Another issue that needs attention is the shortage of good engineers. It is a particular problem for component manufacturers. Those companies, mostly employing 50 or less, and many of them almost cottage industries, are one of the engines of future growth and employment for this country.
Unlike the position in Germany, France or Japan, engineering as a profession does not have the respect or status here that it deserves, and not enough students go into science engineering. One reason for that is that teachers do not have a good view of the industry. Schools need to visit factories and other suitable workplaces, so that children can be talked to directly.
Industry itself can help here. To promote the industry as a viable career option in this increasingly high-tech era, Toyota has set up an educational foundation, in which it has invested heavily in the past three years, to encourage children to take up engineering at school. The Government can also help by encouraging more companies to invest in future engineers in this way.
Furthermore, the education system does not prepare engineers to be ready for immediate use. In the case of the motor sport industry, they need to go through significant training before they are of any practical use in jobs such as the design of cars. Mechanical design should be more widely taught in engineering courses, as it ultimately affects the ability of manufacturers to design and develop components to a high standard. That must be addressed as it is a vital ingredient in attracting inward investment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will promote the industry to universities, colleges and schools in order to attract high-calibre young people to the business and technical sector of this industry.
Finally, the massive traffic jams for the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, our flagship race venue, are a national disgrace. The Government recently approved a by-pass, as a private finance initiative, for Silverstone village, where the A.43 is permanently heavily congested and exceedingly dangerous. That by-pass needs to be started urgently, and I hope that my noble friend will take up the matter with the Highways Agency.
Great Britain is now the very centre of world motor sport. We are the enterprise centre for Europe. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on providing the political environment for this industry to flourish.

1085
I very much hope that they can ride on its success and will continue to highlight, particularly to British sponsors, an industry that is a credit to this country. I beg to move for Papers.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has been lucky in the ballot and has introduced this debate. I have, since the mid-1950s, followed Formula One motor racing, and to a lesser extent rallying and saloon car racing. Before today's debate I sought advice from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and thank it for its assistance. I particularly thank Lotus Cars for its help. You would have thought that its many achievements since 1948 would have been highlighted in its letter to me—but not once did its name appear. I almost had to drag out of it the confirmation that it was a Lotus 49 which won the Dutch Grand Prix in 1967.
So what is noteworthy of that win? Both the car and the Ford Cosworth engine were brand new, and it was their first outing, having been completed only 10 days previously. I am not aware of that feat having been repeated. I asked Benetton for information, but it showed no interest. I understand that that is its usual course of action.
Motor sport is a complex industry which embraces a wide range of disciplines covering designing and building cars, marketing and funding, promotion, media activities and hospitality, with all the peripheral support these main areas require. It is a global business with an immense audience and considerable spending power and influence, to the extent that national leaders try to attract major events to their countries. Until I saw the television programme last week, I was not even aware that mainland China now hosts international sports car racing. This is an indication of its appeal.
The image of the sport attracts so-called glamour and personalities, which helps to sustain and feed the publicity. Worldwide audiences of Formula One are only exceeded by the Olympics and the soccer world cup, both of which are held only once every four years, not 16 times a year, every year, as with Formula One. A survey by the RAC showed that the annual turnover of motor racing in the UK is over £1 billion, of which more than 60 per cent. is from exports. There are about 50,000 people employed in the industry, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
The complexity and competitiveness attracts the very best in engineering talent and commercial professionals. It is widely acknowledged that British race-car designers, engineers and mechanics are the best in the world. Perhaps this is because we as a nation are good at innovation, tinkering and creative thinking. The evidence and confirmation is there. The top three motor sport arenas, Formula One, Indycar and World Rally championships, are dominated by teams and equipment sourced or based in the United Kingdom. While this island cannot be described as large, it is interesting to note that the majority of motor sport operations are based on an area covering about 100 miles by 150 miles.
1086
A leading Formula One team will raise up to £50 million for one season, and this excludes the drivers' salary of, maybe £10 million, tyres, engines and travel. The contracted sponsors will not only supply this funding but, in addition, will spend an equivalent amount in promoting their involvement to their customers. As your Lordships are aware, the Ford Motor Company of the United States of America has recently announced a £100 million start-up package to part-fund a new Formula One team, to be overseen by the former world champion, Jackie Stewart, for three to five years.
So why invest such large sums of money? The answer is simple: motor sport has been developed as a highly colourful package since the 1960s, which attracts an audience and sells products. I recall seeing a Lotus 49 at Warwick Farm, a course well-known to the Minister, in red, white and gold livery during the Tasman series. I had not seen a car with advertising on it before. I thought that it looked very odd indeed.
However, we arc now used to seeing advertising and would think it equally odd if an Italian car appeared completely red, apart from its number; a French car, blue; or a British car in British racing green. Household names are also established through the power of motor sport. Noble Lords should just remember Fangio, Moss and Hawthorn, Jim Clarke, Stewart, Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt—who posthumously won a world championship—Mansell, Senna and Schumacher.
Motor racing developments can, and do, lead to improvements in our ordinary, family car. I am led to believe that other countries are exploiting the image of motor racing in their production cars: this country should also do so.
The motor sport industry owes a lot to the innovations of Lotus: including the first successful aluminium monocoque in Formula One; the first road-going composite monocoque; the Chapman strut; commercial sponsorship; ground effect; skirts; active suspension and active rear steer, to mention but a few. The industry as whole has improved our lives by developing better chassis, disc brakes, four-valve cylinder heads, turbo-charging, tyre design and, very importantly, crash protection.
So where do we go from here? The sport can be used to encourage development in other areas. With rule changes and the creation of new classes, may be we shall one day see electric vehicle racing. An endurance race for solar-powered vehicles already exists. There are many varied possibilities. Motor sport attracts and applies much of the same leading-edge technologies as the aerospace and military industries, but demands viability in breathtakingly short timescales. If a new technology is developed in Formula One, it takes years to appear elsewhere, yet it takes a maximum of three months for a top rival Formula One team to spot and apply a competitor's so-called "unfair advantage".
At the other end of the scale, karting, banger racing, and so on, can be enjoyed by those unable to afford more. Many community and rehabilitation programmes are built around such activities. This must be better than joy-riding. Motor sport is often used in schools and

1087
colleges as a basis for education, some formally arranged on a national format, but also individual activities set up by enthusiastic teachers.
Motor sport answers the basic questions, "How good am I? Am I better, faster, more clever, braver than?" and, "What happens if?" It does so in a stylised and attractive way which comprises a huge industry with a myriad of small players and very few large players. The UK is particularly successful in this form of competition.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for introducing this debate tonight. Before I say another word, I must declare an interest as a manufacturer and an entrant of grand prix cars in the early 1970s, as president of the British Racing Drivers' Club today and chairman of the board of Silverstone race track. I hope that I shall not touch on any of those three points in the brief words I have for your Lordships this evening.
It is very important to remember that many of the childhood legends which my generation and earlier generations were brought up on, although great, were not representative of the mass in the automotive industry. One can think back to the names of Napier, Bentley, ERA and the pre-war legends and reputations, but they did not represent the significant part of engineering, ability and creativity in the greater picture in Europe and had no part in the United States and the development which took place there. The significant countries from the birth of the motor car until the post-war era were France, Germany and Italy, in Europe; and in the United States, production engineering doubled and they created their racing industry.
If one looks back, there were many concepts before the war which were British, but they have not necessarily succeeded. When one comes to the post-war era, we look at two strains. The first is the great men who were committed and willing to put forward a lot of money towards making British racing successful. I pick out two individuals: Sir Alfred Owen, of Rubery Owen, and Tony Vandervell of Vanwall. At the same time there were innovative engineers.
The first man to lead that was John Cooper. He came from Bristol; he laid his first car ideas by using chalk on concrete with a couple of RSJs and put the tubing round it. He came to Silverstone in 1947, which was then an airfield controlled by the Ministry of Works. He was forbidden entry by a minor bureaucrat who held the padlock to the gate and so he asked a police officer for advice. He told him that he could not get him into Silverstone because it was not a race track but an airfield—a former RAF base—and sent him down to the Saracen's Head at Towcester. He took advice there. They said, "Maybe you should ask Lord Hesketh". He went up to my late father's house and my father appeared with two large dogs and said, "Drive your cars round my race track", which was a horse race track at that time. I think they tore up a bit of grass. But a year later they came hack to Silverstone. The Aitken family
1088
and the Daily Express have over the years put a huge amount of commitment into it and turned Silverstone into what is today, the premier race track in this country.
Out of a very small start came a great legend. It came from the commitment that was put in by Rubery Owen; by Vandervell; and then the engineers who came after Cooper—Colin Chapman, TyreII, the organisers and the creators. Out of a tiny beginning, where we are talking not even about hundreds of employees in 1946–47 but tens, came an industry which today has more than £1 billion of turnover, more than £700 million of exports, more than 40,000 employees and is a world leader. There is no question about that. There is no other country which compares. When, as I know, and most of those taking part in this debate know, not only Mercedes Benz but BMW and other major manufacturers, including Ferrari, are moving all their R&D into the United Kingdom, into a crescent which springs from Reading round to Huntingdon, around the west side of London, it is a fact.
There are many unsung heroes. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made a very good point. Not one knighthood has ever been given to a sport which in real terms has far exceeded the output of Liverpool Football Club or the English cricket team. I am sorry to say that, but it is true. It is a fact worth remembering and knowing today that the first and biggest television sport on earth is the Olympic Games. But those happen once every four years for two weeks. The second is the World Cup finals, which happen once every four years for two weeks. But the biggest on earth is Grand Prix racing, which happens 16 times a year, every year, year in and year out. That was created and is controlled by a British institution called the Formula One Constructors Association.
Many managers of Premiership football teams have little to write home about in their records, but they are better known than Bernie Ecclestone, who when I first ran a car 24 years ago when we were starting out in the creation of the Formula One Constructors Association had created something hugely significant for his country and the people who work in it and for the industry with which I had at one time the privilege to he associated. It is true that what has happened in 50 years is unique. If the rest of British industry had achieved what the racing car industry has achieved, this country would have the strongest and finest economy on earth even with a comparatively tiny population.
I should like to finish with a brief remark. The industry has never received any help from government; more importantly, it has never asked for any help from government; and even more importantly, it has never expected any help from government. But the one thing that could wreck it would be and could be help from government on two issues. The first is environmental. There is a kind of irredeemable logic about environmental legislation which one day could say, "No racing car can run unless it is quieter than a wren bird lying in the wing of a tree". That would ensure the destruction of an industry overnight.
The other is the Broadcasting Bill. Luckily, though Formula One car racing happens to be a bigger world-wide sport than any of the so-called great sports

1089
being discussed in the Broadcasting Bill, the fact that the industry is able wholly to use its ability to sell its quantity in the market and give that back to its industry which guarantees its success raises a question about those who say that there should be control on the ability of any sport to sell what it owns and what should be constrained. That I put up as a small marker. There is no requirement, and never has been, for this industry to be supported by government at any level. It requires only one thing—a commitment on all sides of your Lordships' House to promise that it will never be interfered with by government in order that it can proceed to create and proceed to the success that it will no doubt ensure for future generations.
I conclude on one note. There is great concern about the principle of advertising and what it can do to the youth of tomorrow. It is worth remembering that when there was only terrestrial television in this country there was in principle some way that one could control advertising. When I first went racing there was no advertising of alcohol on any car. That has in a way changed. There were not any rules. There were so-called guidelines but those slid away. If one looks at the Schumacher car this year, one will see quite a lot of German lager advertising on the side of it. But I am more concerned about tobacco advertising.
It is said that tobacco advertising should be banned. If you can control television, if you can control advertising, and if you are in favour of political correctness, I can understand that. But the truth is that today, with satellite and cable, there is no prospect of controlling the advertising on a universal basis of any product which a country deems to be acceptable. The one way to drive the industry not only out of this country but out of Europe is to follow the European Parliament in having a grand view about banning tobacco advertising. If you want to drive to the Pacific Rim a hugely successful industry, which on a comparative basis provides vast employment in this country, that is the way to do it. But it is quite impossible to support any sport which is 12 time-zones away from the factory to the track.
The reality is that technology has excluded the ability of any state to prevent advertising which it does not like, be it political in one sense or the product in another. The truth is that we must accept the world as it stands, capitalise on it and move forward with an industry which did not exist 50 years ago and today provides not only employment but the benchmark for creativity for very many clever young men and women in this country to succeed at home rather than have to go abroad.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I follow my noble friend Lord Hesketh, whose involvement in and knowledge of motor racing is second to none in this House. Nevertheless, today's debate is particularly timely, as only last week, with 1,500 other people, I attended the celebrations in Coventry for the 100th anniversary of
1090
the founding of Britain's first motor industry firm, the British Daimler Motor Company, and with it the birth of the United Kingdom motor industry.
Since the early days the motor industry was irretrievably tied up with motor sport, so it is particularly appropriate to debate the contribution of the British motor sport industry, as this country has since the earliest days competed in motor racing world-wide with ever increasing distinction and success. It is particularly poignant for me as my father was the first Briton to race a British car on the Continent, averaging 31 miles per hour and coming third in his Coventry built Daimler in the Paris to Ostend race of 1899.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned that motor sport has not been debated in the House very often; in fact, very rarely. But I can tell the House that it was first debated in February 1903 and that led to the first official motor sport event in the United Kingdom. That was the Gordon Bennet race in Ireland which took place in 1903 as a result of a British Napier driven by S.F. Edge winning the 1902 Gordon Bennet race from Paris to Vienna, thus giving the United Kingdom the right to organise the next year's race. It will be no surprise to your Lordships that there was inevitably, naturally fierce opposition from local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, supported by, may I say, no less a person than Edward VII. But enterprising persons in Ireland saw a chance of international fame and fortune and agreed to stage it. The necessary legislation to close the roads was introduced and guided through another place by my father and, exceptionally, all stages were passed in one day, as was done similarly in your Lordships' House.
So, all was set for Britain's first official motor sport event, which was in fact won by Germany with the British putting up a rather poor performance. Nevertheless, the Gordon Bennet race put Britain firmly on the road as a major player in the development of international motor sport. That resulted four years later in the opening of the Brooklands racetrack at Weybridge. Indeed, after a very slow start, in recent years, since the war, the industry has transformed itself, taking on the mantle of technological excellence from the aerospace industry and thus keeping Britain in the forefront of the international league in many advanced areas of technology.
As has been said, it is an important employer, with 55,000 full-time jobs and 100,000 part-time jobs. It has the most highly skilled and qualified workforce. That growth has taken place quietly and largely unrecognised. It has been funded by the industry itself, without calls for public finance. All that success relies on several factors and is certainly to be emulated.
The first factor is the excellence of our design and engineering skills. That is complemented by a unique, highly-skilled and flexible workforce together with world-beating expertise at the cutting edge of electronics and materials technology. Jointly, the efforts of our motor racing industry make a tremendous financial contribution to the country, as has been said. The recent decision by BMW to move its touring car operation to Britain, to be run in partnership with McLaren,

1091
underlines that success. It is significant that the great days at Le Mans of Bentley in the 1920s and Jaguar and Aston Martin in the 1950s and 1960s were mirrored only last year by the remarkable success of the McLaren roadcar, which, at its first attempt, won the race with five of the cars in the top six places.
As a result of technical advances applied and proved in motor racing, the family car has constantly been improved and made safer. A good example of that was the fitting of disc brakes on cars raced by Jaguar which arc now standard on almost all cars. I believe that it is very important that the Government should give the maximum encouragement to the most advanced companies in this field, whose objective now is to transfer that leading edge technology into the production car process, thereby playing a very significant role in the development of a new generation of family cars which are lighter, safer, more fuel efficient and less polluting, with consequent significant benefits to our economy and the environment.
Additionally, motor sport plays a remarkably strong ambassadorial role for our country. Unlike in other countries, it has never had any financial backing. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Hesketh on that subject and that that is how it should be. However, young driving teams cannot survive without substantial financial support. Even someone as famous as Jackie Stewart has difficulty in raising funds. So it is sad for this country to see the benefit of their successes gained in Grand Prix racing enjoyed by other nations and foreign companies. I hope that the Government will agree with me that it is important to promote and support investment not only in developing expertise and research but also in supporting young drivers. I was delighted to read two days ago that the Secretary of State for National Heritage had announced that, as a change in policy, some Lottery funds in future will be made available for the training and encouragement of budding new talent in the sporting area.
I hope that the budding new stars in motor sport can be included in the Lottery money. Even if motor sport is not an Olympic sport, it benefits the country significantly more than any Olympic successes. I have a suggestion to make in that respect. When they achieve success in international motor sport the rewards are very high, so could not some system of loans be set up, perhaps supervised by the Sports Council or the RAC, whereby loans could he paid off when and where appropriate in every case?
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, there is a cloud on the horizon, which might indeed threaten the predominance of Britain in the world of motor sport. I refer to the European Parliament's suggestion of banning cigarette and alcohol advertising, which particularly threatens the sponsorship of sporting events, including motor sport. That could have a very serious effect on the sport in Europe, which would see more and more racing events transferred to the Far East, where increasingly new circuits are being built and the attitude to tobacco industry advertising and sponsorship is very different. With increased satellite broadcasting, the races will still be transmitted to Europe without any difficulties or consequences to the promoter's or the
1092
sponsor's marketing. But Britain and Europe will suffer very much. I hope that in any future discussions which involve the Government concerning the curtailment of sponsorship and advertising of tobacco and alcohol, that will he borne in mind. The consequences of such action on sport in general would he disastrous.
Another issue to be addressed is the need for great improvement of the facilities for spectators, especially at our major tracks, which attract a high proportion of overseas visitors and arc a valuable source of income. The governments of other countries, like France, build splendid new circuits and sports stadiums, thereby giving a boost to local economies. Perhaps similar thinking could be applied in this country by Lottery money going either to improving existing circuits or creating new ones. After all, the Sports Council considered a new rugby stadium for Cardiff. Why not have Lottery money for new grandstands at a British racing circuit?
In conclusion, there are many people who believe that the British motor sport industry does not gain the recognition that it deserves. I know one leading motor racing organisation which had great plans for major investment but is finding them very hard to implement owing to planning and other problems. That causes considerable frustration, not least because those people know that they would he welcomed with open arms on the Continent, where our competitors would dearly love to have the British expertise. As of now, the world of motor sport is beating a path to our door. Let us keep it that way.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for giving us the opportunity to sing the praises of British motor sport. Motor sport is one of the unsung success stories of postwar Britain. I come to this debate as a historian and historians talk about the relative decline of Britain, but no decline has taken place in motor sport. Rather, it is the reverse; motor sport has boomed. We go on producing more than our share of champion drivers at the highest level. Cars designed, engineered and built in Britain won over 80 per cent. of the Formula One Grand Prix races held over the past 10 years. It produces £1 billion or more in foreign earnings, both in exports and inward investment. It is an undoubted success story.
With me, motor sport is an interest rather than an obsession. I speak with great diffidence in the presence of so many enthusiasts and experts. But the success of British motor sport has often led me to wonder about the nature of the British genius and the obstacles that we manage to put in the way of its full expression. In that sense, it is a metaphor for much of the history of postwar Britain.
Let us consider the contrast between our motor sport industry and our motor car industry. While our motor car industry was being virtually wiped out in the 1970s, small competition car manufacturing firms, such as March and Lola, which started up at that time, were becoming world leaders. They were triumphs of entrepreneurship, engineering, teamwork and

1093
marketing—all the things in which the ailing giants of the British motor car industry were so woefully deficient. Yet it was basically the same product that was being manufactured: a motor vehicle with four wheels, an internal combustion engine and a chassis.
One explanation for that contrast between brilliant performance on the one side and a fairly dismal performance on the other side is familiar. We have always been better at providing custom-built products for niche markets than at standardised volume production. American mass-production methods did not take as well here as in Germany or Japan—for interesting reasons: partly because they were seen as a threat to a much older British tradition, that of the skilled craftsman, and partly because the hierarchies of those industries reproduced our peculiar class structure without its saving grace of paternalism. Our strengths seem to lie in individual initiative or leadership, to use an old-fashioned word, allied to small-group organisation in which each person can leave his own distinctive and recognised mark on the product.
While British Leyland was crippled by strikes, small firms like March worked round the clock to meet their bulging orders. As noble Lords have pointed out, in the 1980s the Thames Valley became a "silicon valley" of high-tech, small and medium-sized sports car manufacturers while Coventry went bust. Those firms became outstandingly successful by using some of the most durable features of the British way of doing things—the gifted amateur, the scientific boffin, and pride in good quality work.
The good news—this is the main point of my intervention—is that that British tradition of micro-organisation is much better placed to meet the challenges of the new technology than it was to meet the challenges of Fordist mass production techniques. With the advent of distributed processing, faxes and micro-computers, business is being broken up and returned to a human scale. Economies of speed and flexibility have replaced economies of scale. As one study has noted, the new micro-technology had,
"brought the benefits of automation within the reach of specialists as well as mass producers".
The emergence of a technology which fits our national habits and plays to our national strengths furnishes the most solid ground for believing that the long period of British relative economic decline has come to an end.
However, there still remains the considerable puzzle of why our undoubted centres of excellence and innovation have had so little impact on the long cavalcade of industrial mediocrity. Let us consider Japan where Mr. Karamoto, a racing car engineer in the 1960s, became president of Honda in the 1980s. In Britain we rarely get that transfer of ability and achievement from one sphere to another.
My noble friend Lord Hesketh mentioned Bernard Ecclestone, the head of the Formula One Constructors Association. I could mention Max Mosley, who started March in 1969 and is now the president of FIA, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, to which the national motor clubs of 114 nations are affiliated. But
1094
those people, and many others of outstanding ability, are complete outsiders in the world of British motor car manufacture and distribution, and for that matter in the world of British sport, despite the fact that, as noble Lords have pointed out, motor sport attracts 100,000 competitors in this country, and mass television audiences.
There are many ways in which motor sport could contribute to wider commercial and social aims if it was given the chance to do so. Our brilliant sports car engineers have pioneered the development of low emission vehicles, which could guarantee our motor car industry a lucrative share of the American, and particularly the Californian, market. And why not get some of our top racing drivers like Nigel Mansell and Damon Hill involved in road safety education? We just do not think about such things.
I therefore welcome the announcement last week that the DTI will be looking at ways of building on the success of the British motor sport industry to enhance the competitiveness of the British motor car industry. As Mr. Lang, President of the Board of Trade, rightly put it:
"There may well be lessons which the volume market could learn from motor sport"
both in terms of innovation and export promotion. The Government can play a constructive role, both symbolically by honouring high achievement in motor sport, and practically by providing a point of contact for the fractured parts of the motor vehicle industry in order to facilitate the greater success of the whole.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for initiating this debate on the motor sport industry. It is a specialised and small world about which little is widely known. It is also highly successful, but we arc not used to hearing or reading good news, mostly only bad news. For instance, few people know that the Ford diesel engines used all over Europe are built at Bridgend in South Wales or that the V6 engines built by Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port are fitted in Opel cars in Germany and Saab cars in Sweden.
In motoring sport, British technology and expertise in building racing cars have played a vital role. It all started in the late 1950s when John Cooper and Colin Chapman of Lotus built their very successful rear-engined Grand Prix cars. I should like to confirm the story told by my noble friend Lord Hesketh because I was among those who, with John Cooper, turned up to practise at Silverstone in 1947 when the custodian told us off and threatened to call the police because we were bound to run over his sheep. We went to my noble friend's father's house and he very kindly let us drive there. We did not tear up the racecourse, but drove discreetly up and down the drive and did no harm. Strangely enough, I later drove at the opening meeting at Silverstone in September 1948. At that time, the circuit did not go round and round but was diamond-shaped, using all the runways, but that is another story.

1095
Turning back to those rear-engined cars, that configuration is now used on all Grand Prix cars. Britain soon became the technical home of Grand Prix racing, hacked up by knowledgable and enthusiastic sub-contractors. The teams are mostly based in southern England. Ferrari first established a technical studio under the direction of John Barnard, the well known British designer, as long ago as 1986. The McLaren and Tyrrell teams are near Woking; Ferrari is near Guildford; Williams at Didcot; Benetton at Enstone; Jordan at Silverstone and Arrows in Milton Keynes. So, it is not only Grand Prix cars but the top world rally championship contenders which are based in this country.
Britain's sporting expertise extends well beyond Formula One. For instance, the Bicester-based Reynard company, which built the chassis for the car which won the Indianapolis race, has an export turnover of about £15 million a year. Its rivals, Lola and Penske, are also based here. Lola is going to build the chassis for Formula 3000 cars this year and has been building Indianapolis cars for nearly 30 years. Last year its earnings were about £12 million.
Indy car and Formula One engines are supplied mainly by the two Northamptonshire-based companies of Cosworth and Ilmor Engineering, building engines for Ford and Mercedes Benz respectively. In the last financial year, the British motor racing industry earned profits of £750 million on foreign earnings of £1.3 billion. Your Lordships will agree that that is a remarkable achievement for Britain's exports. The industry employs about 50,000 people and well over 100,000 part-timers, which is very important.
The major Grand Prix teams operate with budgets of about £25 million to £30 million a year derived from multinational corporations. Most of that money finds its way to the UK to fund technical development, factory costs, and to pay the personnel.
I am a keen motorcyclist, and I must mention that in motorcycle racing the world superbike championship teams of Honda and Suzuki are based in this country. There are many small firms which play a significant part in supplying specialist parts for all aspects of motorcycle sport. Long may the motor sport industry continue to flourish to the benefit of Britain's exports.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for giving us this opportunity to focus on the United Kingdom motor sport industry today, and I congratulate him on his excellent opening speech. It was so comprehensive and full of interesting facts that I fear there may be few original facts left for me to impart.
I venture to speak in the debate principally as a member of the public who, over the years, has derived great pleasure from watching the sport, and reflected pride from our many successes. However, I can claim some small experience on the track since, like my noble friend and team captain Lord Strathcarron, I have had the honour of representing your Lordships in the annual
1096
Lords v. Commons race at Brands Hatch. As your Lordships may imagine, that is a competitively fought event, and I remember one year—I think it was 1993—when the race took place three days after my noble friend had undergone surgery. He arrived with both hands in bandages, having flown down from Scotland that morning, and proceeded to win the race outright. I can say just two things to my noble friend. First, "You're a tough act to follow"; and, secondly, "I hope that I shall have the pleasure of watching repeat performances in the future".
It seems to me that when the good Lord was distributing talent in the field of motor sport he displayed outstanding generosity towards this country, for, as has already been said by a number of noble Lords, we are the acknowledged world leaders in creative design, engineering and technology. We have dedicated and highly motivated race teams with entrepreneurial skills to match. We have marketing and advertising expertise, and, last but not least, a steady supply of world class drivers.
Over the years one can easily recall such evocative names as Moss; Clarke; Surtees; Stewart; Hill; Mansell; and Hunt, who I believe always credited my noble friend Lord Hesketh and his racing team with giving him the experience, determination, and inspiration to become a world champion. And the list continues today with such names as Damon Hill, Coulthard, and others. So the happy result of that pool of talent is a vibrant and successful industry. That is wonderful news for UK Plc, and it is achieved without one penny of government grant.
Although motor racing does not claim to be a "safe" sport, the industry's safety record has improved enormously over the years, and it now rates between 11 th and 15th in the Government's official league of dangerous sports, with horse riding, swimming, air sports, climbing, and even fishing coming higher up the league table. Indeed, it is in the field of safety that the industry will make such a significant contribution to car manufacture and design in the future.
Last year, Grand Prix motor racing's governing body, the FIA, campaigned successfully for new crash test standards which were accepted by the European Parliament. That will mean that all new mass production cars produced in Europe from October 1988 will have to pass the new off-set deformable front impact test, and the 300 millimetre barrier height side impact test. That does not mean a great deal to me but I can tell you that taking EU countries as a whole, it is estimated that those new standards will prevent up to 90,000 deaths and serious injuries each year.
In addition, the FIA safety working group is currently working with the European Parliament to lobby car manufacturers to provide mounting points as standard for the Isofix child seat. That system uses four claws which fit into special mounting bars along the front and rear edges of car seats and in an emergency enable the seat to be removed without disturbing the occupant. That is another classic example of where leading edge technology and knowledge gained in Formula 1 racing is delivering improved safety in road cars.

1097
In the course of my research on this subject, I came across some interesting figures which I should like to share with your Lordships. The first was referred to by my noble friend Lord Hesketh. It relates to world-wide television audiences for Formula I races, but I do not believe my noble friend mentioned the average audience figures. I am told that they exceed 250 million viewers world-wide. The second interesting figure I came across is that cars designed in Britain have won over 80 per cent. of all Formula I grand prix in the past 10 years. The third statistic has already been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Astor and Lord Strathcarron. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat it. The engine and chassis of practically every car competing on the famous Indianapolis 500 race tracks in the USA and elsewhere are designed and constructed in this country.
It seems to me that in the field of motor sport almost everyone is a winner: the public derive great enjoyment from it; it is a significant employer; the Government receive substantial tax revenues; and it provides companies with a highly efficient advertising forum. I agree entirely with those who have said that that should not be harmed in any way by the EU's attempt to ban alcohol and cigarette product advertising. Finally, the industry contributes towards improved road safety standards. So, I am happy to join with other noble Lords in wishing the industry continued success in this, its centenary year.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, introduced his Motion he reminded your Lordships that the motor industry is celebrating its centenary. I could not help reflecting, somewhat ruefully I must admit, that I have spent 54 years of my life involved in the motor industry. It struck me that I ought to know something about it, but when I am confronted by my noble friends Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Lord Liverpool, Lord Hesketh, and others, I realise that I do not know very much about it at all, because they know the people and they know how it all started. But what I think I do know is that, love the car or loathe it—there are those two groups of people, although most I think fall somewhere in between—no one can deny the huge benefits that the motor car has brought to us, both economically and socially. The trouble is that as a result of the great success of the industry we are now saying, "This cannot go on". The loathers are becoming more predominant and the cry is, "Something must be done". Of course, that is the usual kind of cry. I am suggesting that within the context of my noble friend's Motion something is being done day on day, month on month, year on year.
My good friend Colin Dryden, who is a former motoring correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, wrote to me a few days ago and I wish to quote from his letter. He stated:
"We always used to say that 'racing improves the breed'. Early examples of advances in competition car design filtering down to the car driven by the mythical man … are".
1098
He gives as an example the humble screen washer which was developed as a result of rallying, not Formula One but motor cross and rally work. He instances the disc brake development by Jaguar for Le Mans. He goes on to state:
"These days the link is more tenuous but it's probably true to say that advances in aerodynamics enabling 220 mph plus down the Mulsanne Straight at Le Mans are applicable as well as fuel cut-off devices and crashworthy fuel tanks."
All that demonstrates that motor sport is a mobile test bed, the benefits of which are translated into the ordinary car that we drive about each day.
I had intended to comment on the costs but that has been adequately covered by other noble Lords. In relation to costs I had intended to say something about sponsorship. It would be more helpful to your Lordships if I say merely that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hesketh as regards sponsorship. Whether one is talking about petrol, oil or tyre companies or food, drink and tobacco manufacturers, their support for the motor sport business is absolutely vital if we are to continue in the same way—indeed, if we are to maintain our supremacy in building motor sport vehicles.
We cannot turn the clock hack, but I believe that with a little political will we can look forward to even further benefits accruing from the motor industry over the next 100 years. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever spoke about the need for training. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky reminded us of the initiative that the President of the Board of Trade is taking. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that in terms of giving assistance to the motor sport industry and to the training of motor engineers we might consider copying the successful programme that existed in the DTI when I was there—in fact, I was responsible for it—called "Industry Year". That was an effort to bridge the gap between school, college and industry; the gap that existed when young men and women were considering which career to follow. We may be able to reintroduce something along those lines in order to encourage people into the motor industry, which is a most exciting industry. It has the benefits of being able to move into high-tech design and development, which takes one into motor sport. There can be few young men and women who arc not attracted to motor sport.
In the rather more mundane area of "something must be done" as regards pollution and the environment, while technical advances can make a large contribution we may well have to change people's attitude to car usage. We jump into our cars for almost any journey when perhaps our legs would do better. Such encouragement can come better from the Government departments involved in the environment and the trade rather than from any one particular manufacturer or trade association.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for the opportunity to take part in this short debate. I hope that all that can be done will be done to maintain Britain's supremacy in motor sport and in the motor industry.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in speaking in the debate I feel that I am treading on sacred ground for the simple reason that I am not the greatest enthusiast of motor sports. Indeed, perhaps I more often come into the loathing category.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, however, one cannot deny that the motor car has fundamentally changed our way of life. It is a vitally important part of the way in which society functions. I agree with the noble Lord's point about social attitudes towards cars. The motor industry is probably the most ultimate symbol of the love affair with the car. The car has become one's personal space and it allows personal freedom—or at least it appears to. The motor industry presents us with an object which travels at tremendous speed requiring the driver's tremendous skill and in strident competition. It is something to which people can relate. That vision was brilliantly encapsulated by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. I have heard the noble Lord speak many times but never with such a degree of passion.
I wish to make my only controversial point. I disagree with virtually everything that was said by all noble Lords about advertising. I should like to read a quotation which puts the issue of advertising in context. A spokesman for Rothman's said,
"No one hands over big cheques just to get a warm, fuzzy feeling".
I am sure that the same attitude lies behind Marlboro when it hacks McLaren. The reason why tobacco companies and others are involved in motor sports is that it draws the huge audiences that noble Lords mentioned. One cannot help feeling that the vast numbers of people who watch the sporting events cannot imagine other advertisers coming to the fore. One might believe that they are replaceable. There may he problems in the transference of advertising but we live in a commercial world which is opening up the globe to commercial pressures. Surely the advertising of tobacco and spirits is replaceable. I suggest that we should all consider that because the status quo is what happens now and tomorrow is still up for grabs.
Much has been said about the economic benefits of the motor sports industry. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that 50,000 people are employed in the industry and there are possibly millions of secondary jobs down the line. We must treat the industry with great care and respect. It enables people to be involved in a sport and as an active sportsman who has studied the involvement of motor racing drivers I can say that in every way it is definitely a sport. It requires a physical skill to engage in competition with others—and I believe that we can probably use the following expression in its true context—on a level playing field. It is a competition between equals; or, indeed, as near as you can get to it. It is an equal application of resources. In motor racing, as is true in all other fields, where you have equal resources, equal expertise and money, you get the best results.
I am no great lover of motor racing, but I find myself watching and enjoying the sport when two cars are vying for the lead in a race. I must admit that my
1100
concentration span slips slightly when one car is permanently "x" number of seconds in front. It is very difficult for the cameramen to catch two cars running in first and second places in the same shot. In that situation my concentration may wane, but when there is competition my attention holds firm.
We are talking about a sport which deserves equal respect from the Government. It is also fortunate that it is one of the few sports which actually does not need—certainly in the present situation—government money. I am aware that another speaker may say, "Ah, but you will take away its main revenue", but I believe that we can say that the sport will look after itself. Broadly speaking, sport breaks down into two categories in all fields of activity. First, there is the pursuit of excellence about which we have been talking and, in particular, the highest levels of it; and, secondly, there is the participation aspect.
I return to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. I agree with the noble Lord that motor sport is something where you must have, say, a fairly light touch when it comes to environmental issues. I suppose that "light" is probably the wrong word; but certainly very sensitive handling is needed in that respect for the simple reason that, in current technological terms, cars do make a considerable amount of noise when their engines are going at full throttle. However, I would say that it is unreasonable to try to restrict the major racetracks in this country on those few days when they are in operation. It is not a viable issue to try to do so.
A major concern of many people about sport relates to the proliferation of secondary events. There is one area in particular that I believe may well be worth mentioning. I refer to the use of four-wheeled vehicles for recreational purposes on some of our byways in the country. Our countryside is under great pressure of usage by many groups of people—for example, walkers, riders and so on. Moreover, now we have the increasing use of motor vehicles off road. To get a real buzz out of being in an off-road, four-wheeled drive vehicle, you need a very bumpy track. Ideally you need a nice pot-holed road after it has been subject to about two weeks of torrential rain. It is great fun to drive along with mud and water flying everywhere. Indeed, most of the people who are doing it are sitting in nice heated or air-conditioned cabs. They are sitting there in vehicles with bull bars, destroying the odd shrub at the side of the road.
Perhaps noble Lords can imagine what it is like for someone who is a walker or a rider on a horse using those roads after such activity has taken place. If such areas become popular tracks, they become virtually unusable. In 1981 we changed our classification about which types of roads could be used for such activities. We are now increasingly under pressure because any area which can be approached by a vehicle can be used for such off-road purposes. We must look most carefully at such activity. It is denying access to the countryside to other people who are not in cars. Surely the all-conquering combustion engine could be restricted in that respect.

1101
Surely walkers, riders and other people should take precedence in this case. Why cannot we construct, say, proper test tracks for such activities which can be manipulated to give a new challenge and provide new tests of handling and skills? The growth of the industry and the growth in sales of four-wheeled vehicles surely dictates that, once again, there is a commercial market involved. As such people would probably not pay willingly to use any facility that may be constructed, I would suggest that, once they are prevented from destroying other people's walking territory, they might just come round and cough up.
I have a few final comments to make as regards what has been said about the science and technology base of the motor industry. It is undeniable that the motor industry has been for the normal road-use car what military aviation has been for civil aviation. Indeed, it has been where the testing has been; where the money has been; and where the incentive to carry out work has been. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, it is also a great incentive for our science and technology base. I do not know how we could really encompass engineering—and, indeed, physics, chemistry and all the natural sciences—and be more friendly to it, other than by encouraging postgraduate study in those fields. However, I hope that the Government will look kindly on the matter and try to encourage the industry to put money back into it. I know that that goes on and that certain advanced engineering firms sponsor people in such work. But I believe that it is something in which the Government could become active in helping.
With those thoughts, I conclude by saying that, whether one loves or hates it, the motor industry is here to stay. When it comes to the motor sports industry we have—certainly at the top end—something of which we can be proud as a nation.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in preparing for today's debate—and, indeed, while listening to it—I have learnt much to be proud of. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for introducing a cheerful topic to debate. I must also congratulate those noble Lords who have spoken who play an important part in the motor sport industry. I hesitate to call them big wheels, but I am sure that they know what I mean.
It is nice to know that not only do we have some of the most successful racing teams in this country, but also that many successful overseas industrial corporations come to Britain to build and run their competition cars. Indeed, we have heard about such famous names as Mercedes, Honda, Renault, Ford and BMW. We have also heard how virtually all the cars which take part in the Indy 500 races are built in Britain.
Racing car construction may not be the biggest business in Britain, but, from what we have heard, we are certainly the best in the world. I was much impressed with the enthusiasm of noble Lords opposite. Perhaps they should swap the Tory flaming torch logo for the chequered flag.
1102
The noble Lords, Lord Hesketh and Lord Skidelsky suggested that we try to extract the lessons that might be learnt and which can be applied to other parts of British industry. Of course they are varied, complicated and are sometimes just due to luck and coincidence. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, spoke of the luck, or coincidence, regarding the fact that we had an advanced aircraft industry (perhaps because of the war), which meant that the sports car engineers could turn to it for engineering improvements. Frank Williams has described a Formula One car as,
"a low-flying aircraft with its wings upside down".
The wings are designed to keep the car on the ground.
Perhaps I should explain that I come from the textile industry, and was aware of the connection between motor racing and aircraft engineering because, many years ago, my company supplied flame-retardant overalls to the racing teams. That was because we were licensed by the Air Registration Board to supply fabrics for aircraft interiors, and it was natural for the racing teams to seek suppliers to the aircraft industry for their own needs.
Many of those sub-contractors came from the aircraft industry to supply the Grand Prix teams. Fortunately the firms prospered enough to achieve a critical mass that carried the industry forward. That, in turn, made it harder for other countries to enter into what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, described as a small "niche" business sector. I agree with him. So in England we have a cluster of innovative small businesses situated around the Thames Valley and run by enthusiasts.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, told us about the competitive firms working towards a common end, providing mutual support and encouragement, driven by the need for continuous improvement and engineering excellence, because in motor sport racing split seconds count. I do not know much about motor sport but while preparing for this debate there seemed to me to be something in this matter that was familiar to my own experience in the textile industry. It reminded me of the cluster of textile firms in Emilia-Romagna in Italy which co-operated and competed to produce innovative, high quality clothing which is one of the success stories of Italy. Indeed one of the best known firms providing a focus to this cluster was Benetton which is now a household name—as noble Lords know—in the motor racing industry. Benetton was one of the first retailers to exploit the quick response technology available from this cluster of businesses.
Some of the technology and management systems required for quick response were in fact pioneered by my company in the UK some 25 years ago. Surely this is another example of Michael Porter's thesis in his book The Competitive Advantage of Nations in which he argues that modern competitive manufacturing is best carried out, and is most efficient, in just these circumstances—small, innovative businesses focused on their core competences and responsible for their own performance, producing high quality, innovative products. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, explained this, and I heartily agree with him.

1103
During the 1980s we saw a decline in manufacturing industry in this country. In spite of this, corporate profits increased; but instead of investing these profits, most were paid out as dividends. In the motor racing sector these dividends were reinvested. Is not this the sort of desirable scenario we have been hearing about recently from the DTI in its papers on competitiveness? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, does not agree with me at all, but it is true.
The RAC—and the noble Lord, Lord Astor—has called for a survey of the industry by the Department of 'Transport. I hope the survey will also look at these factors relating to investment and productivity because they encapsulate an essential difference between the Government and Labour on industrial policy—a laissez-faire, short-term, financial driven economy, compared with a high tech, high skill and high investment market economy.
Another area for learning valuable lessons is the way the racing teams handle sponsorship. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, spoke of this. It has been estimated that some £100 million a year is spent on Grand Prix sponsorship. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, told us that tobacco sponsorship is crucial to the business. Lotus cars were turned into Player's cigarette packets, and McLaren Cars became a flying Marlboro cigarette packet. Indeed the four main racing teams are all sponsored by cigarette manufacturers. Denied other forms of advertising, cigarette companies have turned to the glamour and sporting image of Grand Prix racing to sell their products. The result is that these advertisements are carried on the media, not least by the BBC. It is in fact a blatant infringement of its advertising ban and, frankly, I think it is a bit of a disgrace. The BBC may use weasel words to justify its going against the spirit and letter of its charter by saying that it is not carrying advertising but merely showing automobile races in which the advertisements are incidental. However, I think that it is about time the industry faced up to this problem and showed rather more social responsibility.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I, too, hope that sponsorship is opening out to new areas because the teams are good at getting sponsors. They understand a sponsor's needs and allow companies to use their sport for public relations. So sponsorship is perhaps becoming less about selling products and more about perceptions. It is interesting that after the Shell Oil company was hit by the Brent Spar fiasco, it tried to rebuild its image in Germany by sponsoring Michael Schumacher driving in Grand Prix racing for two years. Nevertheless Grand Prix racing has learnt how to squeeze every little bit of benefit from its activity. It seems to me that the only space that has not been sold is the space between the drivers' ears!
Many noble Lords have spoken of the spin-off from motor racing. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, told us of the contribution made to safety. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords told us how the ordinary motor car industry has benefited from better safety, better tyres and better suspension. The use of carbon fibre for lightness and strength has certainly been developed in motor sport. This expertise may well
1104
be used in other industries and it is no accident that Chris Boardman's carbon fibre frame cycle, on which he won an olympic medal, was made by Lotus.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, told us of the spin-off to the motor cycle industry. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I believe there is a need to speed up the transfer of technology to other sectors.
Many noble Lords have spoken of the role of government. One role of government in all this is certainly in the area of technology transfer as regards the use of carbon fibre; the use of ceramics in engines instead of metal, and fuel efficiency. There must be plenty of technology which can benefit other sectors of industry. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, spoke of the need to raise the status of engineers. I agree with him entirely. This is a problem inherent in other industries, too. In preparing for this debate I was interested to learn that Komatsu supplies engineers to the motor racing industry because having a chance to work on Grand Prix cars is so sought after by engineers that Komatsu reckons that attracts some of the best engineers to its company.
The Government can also encourage local colleges to become centres for knowledge, training and research. The sport is providing the winning drivers today. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, spoke of the need to ensure—in order to hold on to that lead—that we invest in training the winners of tomorrow. Drawing on my textile experience, this was the role of the local government in Emilia-Romagna in supporting the cluster of textile firms. There the local government were also active in getting the mixture right and achieving a critical mass. Of course I can understand the Government being a little reluctant to learn from the administration in Emilia-Romagna because until last year it was a communist administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, told us that in the past the industry has been sustained by enthusiasts investing their personal money. I understand it is an old saying in the motor sport industry that anyone can make a small fortune out of motor racing providing they start with a large one. Most of the firms are young and also sell to the aerospace and defence industries. Therefore it is important that all of these industries—racing, aerospace and defence—prosper. With the aerospace and defence industries cutting back, that is a matter of some concern.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, during many years in your Lordships' House I have never, ever intervened in a wind-up speech. However, I have been so disgracefully misquoted by the noble Lord that I really must stop him. I never said that it was enthusiasts' investment that made the industry. All of these businesses depend on being run by businessmen. It is not some kind of cavalier adventure as the noble Lord would make out. The truth is that I have been misquoted constantly in his speech. He did not listen to a word I said. I have looked at his speech and seen that it was all typed out before he heard a word that I had to say. I should be grateful if he did not make any further mention of me because every time he does it is a wholly disgraceful, inaccurate misrepresentation. The noble Lord has no Whip with him which I think is also fairly disgraceful. It is

1105
becoming more and more clear that the Opposition spokesman has a lack of understanding which is frankly embarrassing.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is upset. I carefully noted some of the comments that he made. Certainly I prepared my notes beforehand but I also noted down some of the comments that the noble Lord made.
I listened carefully to what everyone said. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, told us of some of the fortunate sets of circumstances which have occurred over the past 40 years. He was speaking as an historian. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, one gets the impression, having listened to what other noble Lords have said, that these companies are driven by enthusiasm, passion and interest rather than by accountants. Many noble Lords have said that this set of circumstances seems to work well in this country, with responsive business units focusing on their core competences rather than working in large centrally-organised vertical production firms. Most importantly, I do not believe that those companies have as their first priority the production of shareholder value for financial institutions. Their first priority is simply to win races. That is what the sponsors want, and in many ways they are the providers of the capital. That is what the engineers, subcontractors and racing teams want. All of the stakeholders are united in a single objective. I would regard that as a very successful example of the stakeholder economy.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity for this debate. Like other noble Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Astor for initiating it. I have always taken a very keen personal interest in motor sports, and therefore it is a genuine pleasure to be able to discuss this exhilarating and commercially important sector of sport.
The motor sport sector is an area in which the United Kingdom leads the world. I can proudly make that statement without any reservation. Yet all too frequently it has been said that the achievements of the sector go unacknowledged. We should take every opportunity, such as this, to applaud and promote the sector. We have the most innovative designers; the best and most imaginative manufacturers; and I do not believe that we should be shy to say that we have some of the best drivers. The world comes to the United Kingdom for its racing cars. When we refer to motor sport we must recognise that we are talking not only of Formula One. Far from it. Undoubtedly Formula One is the pinnacle of the sector, which is only natural since it is such a high profile and glamorous sport.
A number of noble Lords have referred to viewing figures, etcetera. I have here some figures that are even larger than those that have been mentioned. Each season Formula One is televised to well over 100 countries and a staggering aggregate audience of 27 billion people. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the motor sport sector covers a much wider range and depth of
1106
activities. Rallying, Formula 3000, touring cars, research and development and manufacture of highly specialised components and electronics are just some of the areas in which we excel. Another area of motor sports that I highlight is the Isle of Man TT motorbike races. Surely there can be few who have not heard of this world famous event. The Isle of Man can rightly call itself the road racing capital of the world. Not only does it make an important contribution to motor sports but it also generates wider benefits. The races for both motorbikes and cars are held throughout the summer period and attract a significant number of tourists and race enthusiasts. This creates considerable economic benefits.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I should like to repeat the incredible success story of the United Kingdom's complete domination of the Indianapolis 500 race series. Half a million people attend the event itself and another quarter of a million watch the pre-race practice runs. This serves as a superb advertisement for British craftsmanship and design ingenuity. That race is only one of a series. There is enormous coverage of the event in the United States in particular. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me if I mention one more success story—there seem to be so many in motor sports. I congratulate Colin McRae who became our first world rally champion driver at the end of last year.
The sector is a very significant industry in its own right. My noble friend Lord Astor raised the question of statistics and the lack thereof. This is a matter about which the SMMT, DTI and representative bodies are concerned. The SMMT already has first-class information and statistics about the motor industry but not about the motor sport sector. I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this matter. I will ask officials to see how the necessary statistics can be set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will be interested to hear that there has already been an important transfer of technology from the specialist motor sport industry to the mainstream car production industry. Advanced braking systems, analysis of crash management, lightweight materials, engine and fuel injection development, electronic management systems and semi-automatic gear boxes are some of the areas that have directly benefited volume manufacturers. These developments have undoubtedly contributed to technical improvements in mass-produced cars, but, equally important, have improved the safety of driving for consumers.
In concluding this brief overview of motor sports, I should like to highlight some of the illustrious names that the sector has generated, some of which have already been mentioned tonight: Lotus, McLaren. Cosworth, Williams and Tyrell, to name a few. It is significant that although many people are not necessarily motor sports fans—including perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington—there is a high probability that they will have heard of at least one and perhaps all of those names.
Some of your Lordships have asked this evening what the Government are doing for the motor sports industry. I have also heard some noble Lords say that if they are

1107
not doing anything that is a damn good thing. We arc working with the sector actively in a number of ways. At last week's SMMT banquet for the centenary of the United Kingdom motor industry, the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Ian Lang, announced an important new initiative to build on the success of the British motor sport industry. The purpose of the initiative will be two-fold. The first is to focus on ways in which companies in the volume automotive sector can adopt technology and other skills from the motor sport industry.
The companies in this country which design, develop, build and support racing cars are a supreme example of British engineering, flair and sophistication. They have many useful lessons for the wider component supply industry in terms of technology, organisation and teamwork. In all of these areas our component suppliers, with the support of the DTI, are working hard to improve their competitiveness. The second part of the initiative is to take a fresh look at ways in which the international prestige and world-class performance of British motor sport can support export promotion and outward investment initiatives.
We have a great asset in this industry, and the industry is in a position to attract public interest and attention across the world. More can be done to build on this. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that these moves arc to be welcomed. The DTI is actively developing methods to take forward this initiative. Moreover, DTI Ministers and officials will be intensifying their discussions with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which is the lead trade organisation for the vehicle industry, and other representative bodies such as the Motor Sport Industry Association and the wider automotive industry to see how the interests of the sector can be further promoted. For example, the SMMT has offered to give the Motor Sport Industry Association affiliation status and appropriate administrative support. We believe that this generous gesture is to be applauded. It will provide the motor sport with a stronger voice and focal point. Of course, SMMT in partnership with DTI will continue to look at ways in which they can further promote the industry and enable it to prosper.
I should like to emphasise that the sound economic climate that has been created in the UK in the form of low inflation, low taxation and sound public finances has been central to allowing the motor industry in general, as well as the motor sport sector, to develop. In manufacturing we have world class vehicles and components manufacturers operating in the UK. We have a world renowned design engineering and R&D capability and our retail and distribution sector is increasingly innovative thanks both to manufacturers and dealers. It is no wonder that vehicle production is rising, that exports are rising, and that the UK has become the most attractive location in Europe for automotive companies.
One of the most exciting announcements that we have heard recently in motor sport was the news earlier this month by Jackie Stewart—surely one of the greatest names in the history of not only British but world motor racing—that, with the support of a multi-million pound
1108
long-term agreement with Ford he will form a new Grand Prix team. The team, almost inevitably, will be based in the UK—Milton Keynes to be precise—and will race for the first time in 1997.
These are exciting developments and serve to underline that the UK is regarded as the natural base for the motor sport industry. Indeed, Britain is arguably the enterprise centre of Europe with the automotive industry, and within that motor sport at the forefront of that sector.
Perhaps I may make a few comments on various points raised by noble Lords. A number of noble Lords mentioned tobacco advertising. A voluntary agreement was drawn up between the Department of National Heritage and tobacco companies last year. Some noble Lords may not be aware of it. A key feature of the agreement is that tobacco companies can now spend only 15 per cent. of their sponsorship budgets on promoting an event. That ensures that 85 per cent. of tobacco spending on sponsorship now goes directly to sports bodies. That agreement, of course, applies only in the UK. However, it is a voluntary agreement which has been entered into.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be pleased to know that we are aware of growing concerns at the use of four-wheel drive vehicles on byways, in particular deliberate damage caused to countryside tracks. There is a commitment in the 1995 White Paper, Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside, to consult on whether legislation to ban vehicles from byways may be desirable.
My noble friend Lord Astor and my noble friend Lord Lucas spoke about the shortage of engineers. It is a global problem, not just one faced by the UK. The DTI is aware that it is an important issue and is urgently investigating with the automotive industry ways of increasing the numbers of suitably qualified designers and engineers and addressing the industry's education and training needs.
I can give two examples. The cross-training initiative will pump prime the SMMT's design engineering group to undertake a feasibility study for design engineering initiative. The aim is to evaluate the scope for retraining people with non-automotive skills, such as those from the defence and aerospace industries, in automotive design and engineering.
Secondly, the DTI and SMMT are developing a concept known as the virtual university to meet more adequately the education and training needs of the automotive sector. It is an exciting proposal and one that the industry fully supports. The DTI, the SMMT and the industry are urgently exploring the options for this university.
I shall certainly take up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as regards the "Industry Year" to see whether vie can take it further.
My noble friend Lord Astor suggested that I might be a focal point for the industry. I am flattered and grateful to my noble friend for suggesting that I should be. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Loki Fraser, when that occurs, I would be happy to fulfil such a role as appropriate. However, Ministers

1109
in a number of government departments have a keen interest in the motor industry. In particular, Ministers and officials from the DTI have responsibility for sponsoring the UK vehicles manufacturing and motor sport industries. The DTI and in particular the department's automotive directorate already has an active and positive working relationship with the industry and always stands ready to advise and support on issues of concern to the industry.
My noble friend correctly pointed out that the Silverstone bypass is part of a private finance initiative. Indeed, the bypass is part of a larger project, the A6/A43 south Midlands network, which was announced by the Secretary of State last November. The project is entirely dependent on private finance. The Department of Transport does not envisage work starting on the project until some time in 1997.
My noble friend Lord Astor raised the issue of motor sport on roads. Although the Department of Transport has not objected to events such as the Birmingham Superprix for purpose-built racing cars, the department believes that motor sport on public roads conveys the wrong message to motorists and encourages dangerous imitative behaviour. That can be borne out to some extent by the number of deaths after the TT by people using those roads thinking that they are qualified TT riders.
My noble friend Lord Montagu raised a number of interesting matters. I should like to consider them to see whether we can do something about those interesting and helpful suggestions.
I wish the industry the very best for the future and emphasise that the Government stand ready to continue to help nurture the industry.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. We have heard some very successful, distinguished, informed and uninformed speakers. I am delighted that on the whole most speakers reinforced what I said earlier.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I apologise that they will he leaving later than I promised because of the Statement. I thank the Minister for his reply. With his interest and enthusiasm I feel that I have achieved my objective of making the Government more aware of the motor sport industry.
I have two points. First, I strongly disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Haskel, about the ease in obtaining sponsorship. That is completely untrue. I know that even some of the leading Formula One teams are struggling to obtain all their sponsorship. I hope that they will bear that in mind.
Secondly, as deputy president of RoSPA I shall certainly follow through the very good point made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky on road safety. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Companies Act 1985 (Miscellaneous Accounting Amendments) Regulations 1996
8 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying a little about the purpose of the draft regulations. The draft regulations in the main simplify or repeal a number of specific Companies Act accounting disclosure requirements, thereby removing provisions that have been superseded by other requirements, or are otherwise no longer warranted. The draft regulations also rectify a technical problem identified in relation to audit exemptions for "off-the-shelf" companies and correct some technical anomalies identified in the implementation of the insurance accounts directive. In addition, they include a new requirement for public limited companies and their large subsidiaries to publish their payment policies in the directors' report.
With the exception of the new requirement requiring disclosure in the directors' report of a company's payment policies—of which I will say more in due course—the draft regulations, taken as a whole, should reduce the administrative and other costs to companies in complying with Companies Act disclosure requirements.
With the exception of the new requirement for disclosure of payment policies in the directors' report, which will apply solely to public limited companies and their large subsidiaries, and those provisions relating exclusively to insurance companies, the draft regulations as a whole apply to the entirety of registered companies, regardless of size or business type. However, in practice the provisions relate mainly to the accounts of large companies, as small companies are already exempt from a number of disclosure requirements.
Turning now to the new requirement that public limited companies and their large subsidiaries disclose their payment policies in the directors' report, I should like to say a little about the background to this measure. The Government's 1994 competitiveness White Paper, Competitiveness—Helping Business to Win, announced a package of new measures to help tackle the problem of late payment of commercial debt. One of the key elements in that package was the introduction of a requirement for public limited companies to publish their payment policies in the directors' report, thereby providing suppliers and others with information about how they can be expected to be treated by such companies, and thus giving additional data on which to base decisions on, for example, supply and pricing.
In February 1995 the DTI consulted the business community on the form of the statement that directors would be required to make. The statement was to be based on whether or not the company follows any code of practice on prompt payment: companies would either disclose that they complied with such codes, including

1111
the proposed new British standard, or they would disclose that they complied with principles of good practice to be specified in the proposed regulations.
The majority of those responding to the consultation were in favour of this policy, although a number of respondents pressed for alternative measures to address late payment. A further round of consultation, based on the text of the draft regulations as a whole, was undertaken in October last year. The response to the new disclosure requirement was favourable, although some respondents again sought to use the consultation to argue for additional measures to combat late payment, including a statutory right to interest.
The new disclosure requirement will only apply to public limited companies and to large private companies which are subsidiaries of public limited companies. We estimate there to be approximately 11,900 public companies. The new requirement will come into force in relation to accounts for financial years ending after 24th March 1996, although the information to be provided will he in respect of the payment policy for the forthcoming year.
Requiring public limited companies to publish details of their payment policies should prove a real disincentive to poor practice. Chairmen will not want to admit publicly that their companies do not have a policy of paying on time. Furthermore, the fear of being confronted with evidence from disgruntled suppliers—who may well seek to generate adverse media comment—that their stated policies and actual practices differ, should help ensure that directors take the necessary action to make sure that they pay promptly.
Finally, I should like to reiterate the point I made earlier that all the measures contained in the draft regulations before the House today have been subject to full public consultation. The draft regulations have been widely welcomed and are seen as a positive first step in simplifying the accounting disclosure requirements of the Companies Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I welcome the statutory instrument as an attempt to change the culture so we will not oppose it. However, I have two problems with it. First, I do not think it goes far enough. Secondly, will it apply to government, local authorities, government agencies and so on?
I am sure that the Minister will be aware of Francis Fukyama's new book: Trust—The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. In it he argues that social culture comes before economics and if there is no culture of trust, the transaction costs are enormous.
What has all that to do with late payments? Firms spend many years building up relationships, and paying your supplier on time is an important part of that. It is in that context that I should like to see the statutory instrument. Without that ethical context, there is no real need to pay your supplier on time. Every businessman knows that credit from suppliers is a cheap source of finance. So we certainly welcome as a contribution
1112
towards a cultural change the requirement to make a statement in the annual report, but I have my doubts as to whether it will help practically.
We support companies having to state their intentions, but it would also be a useful discipline to state what their practice has been during the year. That point was made in the Labour document: A New Economic Future For Britain. If the directors reported on their record of payments and the auditors checked it, not only would it be a useful discipline but also the small company receiving late payment could bring that to the attention of its customers' auditors. At least the small companies would have someone to talk to, instead of talking to the press, as the Minister suggested.
If we really want to help small businesses collect their debts, we must help them to help themselves, as the Government's White Papers on competitiveness have pointed my:. For instance, in large and small firms nowadays roost orders are processed by computer. The software is such that it is easy to print out orders and order confirmations. Let those orders and order confirmations state precisely the terms of payment. Of course, one effective way to get prompt payment is to give discounts and cost them into your prices.
Many years ago there was a radio programme called "Your 100 Best Tunes".
Lord Henley: It still exists.
Lord Haskel: I should have thought that the noble Lord was too young to know the programme. I remember that at the time in my office we kept a record of the hundred best reasons for not paying. If I can find it, I shall send it to the Minister. I remember clearly that Reason 76 for the customer not paying was that he did not have any cheques and he could not get any from the bank because the printer was on strike.
The DTI has a department for promoting good business practice. I hope that those practices will be promoted to small companies via business links while, at the same time, the requirements in this statutory instrument are made obligatory for large companies.
Most important is the question of payments from government, local authorities, government agencies and other customers not entirely in the private sector. In the statutory instrument or in Appendix A to the consultative document, there is a statement that the public sector must give a lead and that the Government will require all government departments and their agencies to comply with the CBI prompt payment code. Very laudable. But what happens in practice?
The Minister will have noticed that last weekend Mrs. Barbara Roche MP issued a statement pointing out that in 1994–95 £208 million was paid late by the Government to firms. The Treasury, the DSS, the ODA and National Heritage were able to say how much they had paid late. The DTI—the Minister's department—the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment could not. Is it surprising that hills are paid late if the accounting systems in Whitehall are in chaos? Can th Minister say what the Government will do about it now?

1113
I can do no better than to quote the Federation of Small Businesses:
"How can the Government say in one breath that it wants a solution to the problem of late payments, when its very own departments are guilty of major delays in their payment record? Setting an example should be paramount in Ministers' minds".
I could not have put it better myself.
I believe that that covers the main point in the statutory instrument. The remaining points are mainly technical, dealing with accounting standards for Europe. There are also some measures making good earlier omissions and minor points tidying up the accounts of insurance companies and banking companies. However, they are additional regulations. I hope that the Minister is keeping count, so that when the Government are next in deregulation mode, and we hear about how many regulations have been scrapped, the regulations in this statutory instrument today will be subtracted from the total.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, to respond to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, there is clearly one point that the noble Lord has not understood: this is a Companies Act regulation; therefore it could not affect government departments, local authorities, etc.
Government departments and their agencies already publish their payment performance and are required to comply with the CBI prompt payment code. That information is in the public domain; it is publicly available. The Government are very concerned to ensure that if they are not complying with the code, their systems are being addressed to make certain that they do comply. The statistics that the noble Lord mentioned were related to invoices that had actually been received. If invoices are received late, it is very difficult to make prompt payment on them. Therefore those figures can be slightly misleading.
In summary, the main aim of the draft regulations is to simplify specific Companies Act disclosure requirements and to remove provisions that have become redundant as a result of new developments. Given that that is the case, I should have thought it is deregulation, not regulation. The new requirement on disclosure of payment policies in the directors' report has been included with the accounting simplifications so as to avoid inconvenience to business by introducing two sets of regulations in quick succession. This new requirement is one of a number of measures implemented to tackle the late payment problem. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Services) (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1995
8.12 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Services) (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1995 be approved.
Perhaps I may say how much I appreciate the extraordinary interest the House is taking in this rather fundamental and important order! As a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment, but on this occasion speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury, I am not terribly surprised that there is not a great interest in these regulations. They have nothing in them about selection in schools, grant-maintained schools, standards or other matters. I am, however, grateful to see the presence of my opposite number, the Opposition spokesman on education matters, in the House. Perhaps the noble Lord might want to add something later in the debate.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should point out that I am here in my capacity as Deputy Chief Whip, and unfortunately not in any other capacity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am of course distraught to hear that the noble Lord will not wish to engage me in discussion on those matters. I appreciate that he and I recognise that they would not have any strict relevance to our discussion this evening.
The measure before us today is a small but necessary part of the implementation in the United Kingdom of the European Union's Investment Services Directive. The directive extends to investment firms, as from the beginning of this year, the arrangements which already apply to banks, building societies and insurance firms.
Under these arrangements, firms authorised in accordance with the minimum requirements of the directive may either establish branches or provide services directly into any other European Economic Area state.
The UK financial services industry, as noble Lords opposite will well know, with its wide range of expertise and strength in depth, and its high proportion of non-bank investment firms, is particularly well placed to take advantage of this, and the industry itself has been anxious to see the Investment Services Directive implemented.
The basic requirements of the Investment Services Directive in fact fit well with our existing authorisation and regulatory regimes. Many investment businesses in the United Kingdom will find the directive makes very little difference to the way they actually conduct themselves, although it will open up far greater opportunities to boost business in Europe. It also has the effect that our recognised investment exchanges now have the right to place screens in other EEA states if firms located in those states wish to become screen-based members.
UK firms within the scope of the directive who are already authorised under the Financial Services Act, have automatically been deemed to be authorised under the Investment Services Directive and, if they are already doing overseas business either directly or through a branch, have been accorded "passported" status.

1115
The present order has two main purposes: it extends the coverage of the Financial Services Act to ensure that all the activities covered by the directive are included; and it enables the Securities and Investments Board to apply conduct of business rules to certain activities by authorised firms which do not, in their own right, require authorisation. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 18th December be approved.[4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Henley.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I must apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Chandos, who is delayed at a discussion about educational matters. In that, I gather he shares an interest with the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I am sure that we could debate that subject at another time, possibly in the Bishops' Bar. I thank the Minister for explaining this order. We will certainly not oppose it.
The order is important for our financial services industry, and it is particularly important for Britain, because the financial services industry is an important part of our economy. We have the largest financial services business in Europe. I agree with the Minister it is to be hoped that this order may allow businesses to grow yet more.
However, the order allows financial services business in Europe to trade in the UK; and it lays down some rules for that competition. What the Minister did not tell us in detail is that the order adds more regulations to the heavy load already carried by our financial services industry. The compliance departments in companies will have to see that these new regulations are also complied with. Fairly soon, the compliance department will be as big as the administration department.
The industry takes compliance seriously. But in spite of that effort, the financial services industry is not popular. The pensions and life insurance sectors certainly do not enjoy public confidence, particularly as it now looks as if we are still two or three years away from clearing up the mis-selling of pensions. As my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Darling, has frequently said in another place, how much more self-regulation compliance are the Government going to impose on our financial services businesses before the businesses crack and the Government are forced to introduce proper regulation? In addition to the regulations in this order, the order empowers the Government to make yet further regulations. Does the Minister have any regulations in mind with which to burden yet further the financial services industry?
As the Minister told us, these regulations allow European companies to set up business here on the back of a passporting system. What happens when something goes wrong? We seem to have great difficulty in dealing with problems when something goes wrong with companies based in the UK. It will be far more difficult when we are dealing with companies regulated by different rules in their home countries. Indeed, our regulators can fall out with their regulators. It seems to me that by opening up the financial services business to
1116
European competition while retaining our current system of self-regulation, the Government are setting up a disaster waiting to happen. I hope that the Government are giving this matter some thought. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the position.
This is a particular problem for the UK. Our financial services industry is larger, more diverse and more fragmented than those in other European financial centres. We have thousands of different companies, large and small, whereas in other European centres the financial services industry is owned by a few large institutions that all know each other and deal with each other. Regulation is much easier there than it is here. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Commission will take this into account when drawing up these European regulations.
Finally, I repeat what I said a few minutes ago when dealing with the previous business in your Lordships' House. We are constantly hearing on the radio and reading in the press how the Government are busily deregulating business and industry. We are frequently told how many regulations have been scrapped. When these figures are given, I hope that the regulations we are passing today in this order will be subtracted from the total of those scrapped.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's warm welcome of these regulations. I am glad that he recognises the strength of the financial services sector in the United Kingdom economy and how well it does. He went on to imply a degree of criticism of the self-regulatory regime which applies and implied that some more onerous and more regulatory regime—which I believe he opposed in the earlier order which he spoke to—might be appropriate. There is a fundamental divide between us and one which probably cannot be bridged over the Dispatch Box on this occasion. I simply say that I believe the noble Lord is wrong.
I said that I am grateful that the noble Lord recognises the strength of the financial services sector. I appreciate that he had a number of concerns which he addressed. He asked whether we had any more regulations up our sleeve. I can give the noble Lord the simple assurance from this Dispatch Box that we do not. He further asked whether this legislation adds to our regulatory load. Again, I can say no to that. As I said, the provision is largely modelled on the existing system.
He implied that the system showed a great deal of trust of the overseas regulators and asked how that can be justified. As I believe the noble Lord will be aware, Lord Justice Bingham supported the home state regime in the BCCI case. That demonstrated graphically the difficulties that occur when there is no single state responsible. This directive is simply following a pattern established already for credit institutions and insurance firms. The banks and building societies have been able to passport into the United Kingdom for the past five years. Depending on the extent of their home state operations, they have been able to provide investment services in the United Kingdom throughout this time. I believe that we have had relatively few practical difficulties as a result of the operation of the passporting regime.

1117
The noble Lord asked what was happening in other European countries. Our latest information is that there are four European countries who have fully implemented this directive. They are ourselves, once this order goes through, the Netherlands, the Irish and the Swedes. There are three countries involved in the capital adequacy directive; namely, this country, the Netherlands and the Spanish. Therefore, investment firms situated in those countries will have an early opportunity to take advantage of the single market. I am very glad to stress, as the noble Lord did, that the United Kingdom, which has the strongest financial services sector, falls into that category. The Commission has made it very clear that it intends to move promptly to the institution of infraction proceedings against those member states which fail to implement properly. As a result of this measure, United Kingdom firms will now have the right to passport into all EEA states and only the Dutch, Irish and Swedish firms will have the right to passport into the United Kingdom.
I believe that the noble Lord also implied that we were over-regulating and going over the top in implementation of the directive. I am the first to reject that. I assure the noble Lord that we have taken extraordinary pains to ensure that there is neither
1118
gold-plating nor double-banking in our implementation of the directive. The implementation follows very closely on the previous implementation of the second banking directive. There is certainly a very big premium for the industry in having two regimes as similar as the two directives will allow.
Finally, the noble Lord implied that there was considerable opposition within the Community to this particular set of regulations springing from the directive. Her Majesty's Treasury sent out about 3,000 copies of its initial consultation document in 1994. It received three dozen replies—that is, 36 for those of us who date from the post-decimal era. I do not believe that that suggests extraordinarily great anxiety on the part of industry. I hope that I have dealt with most of the noble Lord's points and hope that he will accept that this very well-attended House can now give these regulations their approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.

  Bahrain: Foreign Ministers' Discussions
  Bahrain: Foreign Ministers' Discussions
  Former Yugoslavia: Lifting of Arms Embargo
  Former Yugoslavia: Lifting of Arms Embargo
  Bosnia: US Policy on Arms
  Bosnia: US Policy on Arms
  Treaties Entered into Since 1991
  Treaties Entered into Since 1991
  Treaties: Ponsonby Rule
  Treaties: Ponsonby Rule
  Motorways and Trunk Roads: Cleaning
  Motorways and Trunk Roads: Cleaning
  Domiciliary Care of Elderly People: Supervision
  Domiciliary Care of Elderly People: Supervision
  HIV and AIDS: Incidence Forecast
  HIV and AIDS: Incidence Forecast
  HIV/AIDS: Combination Drug Therapy
  HIV/AIDS: Combination Drug Therapy
  National Disability Council
  National Disability Council
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Firearms: Central Register
  Firearms: Central Register
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  BBC Charter and Agreement
  BBC Charter and Agreement
  Painting of House of Lords in Session
  Painting of House of Lords in Session
  Nitrate Control, Scotland
  Nitrate Control, Scotland