Sitting of 26 June 1996

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

  Right to Work
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Employment Committee of Session 1995–96 on The Right to Work/Workfare (House of Commons Paper No. 82). and the Second Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee containing the Government's Reply thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 585.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  9.35 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I greatly welcome the opportunity to put before the House the recommendations of the Employment Select Committee concerning workfare. I do so with some trepidation because we have, as it were, risen from the grave. The Government having consigned us for ever to oblivion, we have emerged again to entertain the House a little. Still, this is a subject of great importance to the country, to the House and to every hon. Member in the House.
  I pay special tribute to all the members of the Select Committee on Employment for the work that they did on this report; and I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) in particular for all that he has done to enable this debate to take place, and for so kindly allowing me to open it. I am the departed Chairman of the old Committee; he is the newly installed Chairman of the new and reincarnated Committee, which incorporates the old one.
  The problem of unemployment is one of vast consequence. It is the greatest single cause of economic misery in this country. It is a disaster for millions of people and for their families, and the Employment Committee was united in seeking ways to deal with it.
  At this point I pay tribute also to a man whom I would wish to call my hon. Friend, because he is both honourable and my friend: the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell). Thinking about tonight's football match, I wonder whether he would be more comfortable on the right wing, where he has been used to spending his time, or on the left wing, to which some of us feel he has moved. For he is the progenitor of ideas that are far from orthodox on the right. I note that he shakes his woolly, farmer's head—to no avail. He is a man of integrity and of ideas, and this one is his baby. Once I have outlined what the debate is about, I shall leave it to him to advance the united views of the Committee.
  We start from the premise that the need for jobs is huge. We start from the Government figure of just over 2 million unemployed people—nearly double the number when they came to office. It is, however, an unreal figure because it excludes 10 categories of people. They include
  264
  those who have left the register because they have simply given up and no longer feel that there is any hope of jobs for them. Another category is of people who work just one hour or more part time and who, like millions of others, leave the register when they get part-time jobs. People desperate for work will take part-time jobs because there are no full-time jobs. I would be astonished if there were fewer than between 3.5 million and 4 million people who want full-time jobs today but cannot find them.
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might get on to this nonsense early in his speech—he is in typical form. If he approves of the International Labour Organisation—I do not but I suspect that he does—and if he agrees with the labour force survey method of counting the unemployed, which is the ILO-approved method—
  Mr. Frank Field: You do not.
  Mr. Forth: I do not, but I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman does. If he approves of either or both, how does he explain their figure of about 2.2 million or 2.3 million for unemployment in this country?
  Mr. Janner: The Government have no idea how many millions of people are unemployed, nor how much it costs—and they do not care, as they have said in their response to the Committee's report. The Government do not know how many people with part-time work want full-time work—they have never tried to find out and they do not want to know. They do not know how many full-time students would be at work if they could get a job—and they do not want to know. They have no idea how many people in a family wish to work but cannot find a job. What is more, the Minister and Government members laugh about it—that is a disgraceful attitude. The Government think that it is funny that people are unemployed.
  The Committee produced a unanimous report—Conservative and Labour members agreed—which outlined ways to look at the problem. But what was the Government's reply? I shall tell hon. Members my definition of unemployment: it is a "recession" when someone else is out of work, it is "depression" when you are out of work and it is "recovery" for the country when the Government are out of work. That is when we will have hope.
  The Committee—which was led by the hon. Member for North Norfolk—said that we need to know the cost of unemployment. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment—an expert in mathematics—started off by telling us that the cost was about £9,000 per head, but then she lowered the figure to about £3,000 per head because she decided to leave a few things out of the statistics.
  What was the Government's reply? They said that it is not necessary to produce the figures and that that will not help. I know that that view is not held by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, nor by any other member of the Committee. When one wants to cost something out, to find out how to remedy a wrong, and to know what steps to take—whether in business, in commerce or in government—one must know the present cost. The approach of the so-called Government in this regard has been amazing.

  265
  What is the cost of unemployment? We know that it costs misery for millions of people. Unemployment is at the heart of the insecurities of our constituents and the constituents of the laughing Minister, who would not find this at all funny—they either do not have jobs or, if they do have jobs, they feel insecure about their future. Our constituents know—even if the Minister does not—that the number of jobs, the number of people at work, in this country has dropped by 5 per cent. since the Government came to office. That is another indication that the Government's fiddle on figures is the Stradivarius of political life.
  We need to know the cost of unemployment—not just in misery, but in pounds and pence. We need to know the cost of people who are unemployed and receiving benefit, but who wish to work—that is not funny. We need to know the cost of people who wish to be at work and who would be paying tax if they were employed, but who are not—that is not funny. We need to know the cost of people who are unemployed and who would be paying national insurance if they were employed, but who are not—that is not funny. And, above all, we need to know the cost of the loss to the country of all the efforts of these people.
  The Committee made some modest suggestions, such as extending existing schemes and looking not at compulsion—because Labour Members on the Committee would not have accepted that—but at ways in which the community could help people to work. We should pay people to be at work, not pay them not to be at work. This must make sense, provided that we can do it without destroying real jobs. All we asked was that the Government look at this. The puny, nasty, inadequate, insubstantial and impertinent document that the Government have seen fit to put before us is unworthy of the Government—even though they thought that the Committee would never be able to answer back. This is our chance to answer back.
  If the hon. Member for North Norfolk catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will give the House the answer—as will my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose depth of knowledge and understanding of these matters is unrivalled in the House. I shall leave it to them to answer the Government. I ask the Government not to laugh at the unemployment rates, at the figures, at their failure to cost out unemployment in financial and in human terms, and at the report of the distinguished, but now defunct, Committee. It is a report of substance, importance and intelligence—the Government should act on it, not laugh at it.
  9.45 am
  Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my friend the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for his kind remarks about me and for allowing the debate to take place. I became a member of the Committee approximately two years ago. Soon after I joined the Committee, it decided to study workfare and the right to work. I believe that the Committee did a good job in looking into the matter and trying to find a way to solve the problem of unemployment. Everyone agrees that unemployment is wasteful, soul destroying, degrading, unnecessary and unaffordable.
  266
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West referred to the cost of unemployment—the cost is all important. The welfare state is costing too much in this country, and everywhere else. Therefore, it is unrealistic to try to make reforms that will cost even more. The reforms that the Committee recommended—reforms that I have pursued for many years—would save a considerable amount of public expenditure. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point on cost is relevant.
  There should be an independent inquiry into the cost of the Right to Work Bill, which I have put forward with the support of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is also a friend of long standing. The Bill was introduced with just one supporter last July.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the other part of the equation that we need to look at is the cost of the current level of unemployment and the cost of keeping those people doing nothing? Does he also agree that we tried very hard in our report to get the Government to give us an estimate of the cost? The cost ranged from a basic £10 billion a year—which is pure benefit payments—to as high as £24 billion.
  Sir Ralph Howell: I shall refer to the details of the cost a little later in my speech. I beg the Government to take this matter seriously and to have an independent inquiry into the overall cost of the proposals—only then will we know whether they are practical. The Committee believes that we could save at least £5 billion per year, and probably considerably more.
  It is obvious that the welfare state is out of control. In 1948, based on the Beveridge report, we set out on a welfare state system. However, the Beveridge report was never fully put into operation. If it had been, there would never have been any long-term unemployed. Beveridge said that after three months or six months—whichever was decided—benefit would cease and work would be offered. To be fair to the Attlee Government, they could not put the whole report into operation then because there were no unemployed. When unemployment did creep in, successive Governments should have done something about it.
  We are in a extraordinary situation with the Right to Work Bill. An early-day motion has been supported by 70 of my hon. Friends, by 40 Labour Members, six Liberals and eight others, so we have cross-party support. We are causing the Front Benchers to think about the matter seriously. All three main parties have their heads firmly in the sand and they hope that the problem will go away, but it will not go away. The problem will worsen for as long as the welfare state is operated and we must stop spending money and receiving nothing for it in return.
  Most people who are unemployed want to work. The cost of unemployment has already been mentioned and the Government admit that unemployment costs £13.5 billion a year. If we divide £13.5 billion by the number of unemployed—2.2 million-the cost is £6,000 a year each. If we also include the tax and national insurance of at least £1,000 that everyone would pay if they were earning £6,000 a year, the Treasury is losing at least £7,000 per person through unemployment. Society at large is getting nothing in return. Would not it be better for unemployed people to be doing something?

  267
  Unemployment carries further costs in stress, increased sickness, marriage break-up, crime and drug-taking and it is no good denying that there is a connection between crime and unemployment. Everybody should have an opportunity to work, everybody should have a right to work and everybody should have a right to the dignity of earning a living. We could deliver that and save at least £5 billion a year.
  I shall explain how the Right to Work Bill would operate. The main obstacle is that the Government are determined not to accept a situation in which the state is the employer of last resort, but the state is the provider of last resort. Would not it be more sensible from everybody's point of view if the unemployed could do caring work, environmental work or minor infrastructure work—a variety of jobs that could be offered—for the general good of the nation? Fresh thinking is needed immediately.
  The Bill states that the state should become the employer of last resort and should offer work to anybody who has no other work. That idea is not new. It was first introduced in the House in 1911 by Keir Hardie, who by that time was not top of the pops in the Labour party. A rehash of the Keir Hardie Bill was introduced again by a Member of Parliament named Enoch Edwards in 1912. My Right to Work Bill, 84 years later, comes from the opposite side of the House, although I am still as right-wing as I ever was. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] We have formed a bridge across the House and it is time to accept that the state should be the employer of last resort.
  We would ease into the new approach through workstart. I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, because the pilot workstart scheme was set up when she was in charge of the old Department of Employment. It has been highly successful in every respect, but sadly there has been no financial evaluation of it. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to insist on an evaluation of the savings that must have been made by the workstart scheme.
  Under workstart, the Government paid £60 to an employer who took somebody off the register for the first six months and £30 for the next six months. The average saving must have been about £75 a week on what the state paid someone to do nothing before. Workstart should be offered nationwide.
  We should also introduce a non-worker payment. Some people will refuse to work and it should be possible to sack people from the right-to-work scheme if they try to abuse the scheme. The non-worker payment should be 25 per cent. of what is offered under the right-to-work scheme. We should also pay a parents' grant of £60 for the lower-paid. Any couple with an income of less than £180 a week would be eligible for a £60 grant, if one of them remained at home to look after their children.
  Those are the provisions of the Right to Work Bill which has received support from both sides of the House. The Bill would not introduce American-style workfare. So often when this matter is discussed, the media talk of American-style workfare, but we would offer a real job to everybody who wishes to work so that everybody can have the opportunity to earn a living.
  I shall spell out the financial terms. Everybody would have the right to work for 40 hours at £3 an hour, giving a maximum of £120 a week. That would also mean that
  268
  every couple would have access to £240 a week, so virtually no social security payments would be necessary to maintain any couple, married or not. Everybody would have the opportunity to earn £120 and that would get rid of the stigma of social security payments. There would be no fraud and no need for fraud squads for the simple reason that, unless people reported to work, they would not be paid. People could put in whatever amount of time they wished, up to 40 hours a week. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that as a way forward in Europe. I believe that the Government are right to opt out of the social chapter which is causing immense problems.
  Mr. Ken Eastham: Is there not a slight contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's remarks? A few moments ago he argued the case for a minimum wage of £3 an hour, but the Government say consistently that they oppose the introduction of a minimum wage under the social chapter.
  Sir Ralph Howell: The figure of £3 an hour would not be a minimum wage in a statutory sense—anyone who wanted to could work for less—but it would probably develop into one. I have no hang-ups about that, although perhaps the Government do. I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's intervention as it allows me to admit that I have pitched the figure at a low level. I have been talking about £3 an hour for about three years and perhaps it should be a little higher now. However, for the sake of convenience and so as not to confuse the issue, it is advisable to continue talking about £3 an hour. That would be easy to phase in and it would be less likely to upset the Government. I cannot understand why the Government have a problem with the idea of a minimum wage. We spend more than £2 billion supporting the low-paid, so we are bringing wages up to a statutory minimum in any event.
  Returning to my earlier point, I think that the Government are correct to oppose the social chapter as it is now drawn. The Germans, the French and everyone else in Europe who is suffering as a result of the social chapter will find in time that they can no longer support it in that form. I ask the Government to take my proposals seriously. Would it not be better for Britain to rewrite the social chapter instead of sniping from the sidelines? This country has taken the lead many times before—I hope that we shall do so again today in the football—and it is time to rethink the question of the welfare state. Almost all countries copied our welfare system in the late 1940s, but it is no longer viable. It is unsupportable and it is time to rethink the whole system.
  I believe that the legislation would remove unemployment and the fear of unemployment—which is probably worse than the original problem. It would be a fresh start and it would give us something to hope for. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to persuade the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to take the proposals seriously and see whether she can adopt them.
  10.3 am
  Mr. Frank Field: While listening to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who opened the debate, I recalled a comment by Jeremy Thorpe. Speaking about the other place, he said that here was evidence of life after death. The Government have wound up the Employment Select

  269
  Committee, but its former Chairman opened our debate today. Hon. Members and their constituents are grateful to him for carefully nurturing the Select Committee, for opening the agenda and for encouraging hon. Members to exchange ideas and to produce reports that are relevant rather than politically correct.
  My association with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell) goes back a long way. At one time I was in receipt of Cabinet papers about child benefit. The last Labour Government had slight difficulties introducing that benefit and, because I was worried that the special branch would raid my office and take those papers from me, I destroyed them. If I had not done so, I would have been able to look up the exact dates of two events.
  The first was when my hon. Friend—which is how I regard the hon. Member for North Norfolk—attended a breakfast with the Child Poverty Action Group at the Tory party conference. Sir Keith Joseph—as I learnt more about him, I became fonder of him—was hosting that breakfast. The hon. Member for North Norfolk was advancing ideas similar to those in the legislation that he and I promoted during the last parliamentary Session and suddenly Sir Keith Joseph leant across the table and said to the hon. Gentleman, "But, Ralph, you are promoting communist ideas." The hon. Gentleman, in a totally proper, English manner, gently reminded his shadow colleague that he was not particularly interested in labels but in practical proposals to combat an evil.
  At that meeting I first became aware of the hon. Gentleman's real feeling for those people who, for all intents and purposes, have been cast on the scrapheap. He was angry on their behalf that we should run our affairs so carelessly and forget about them because we think that we have done our bit by paying them dole money. I remember also the way in which he challenged Sir Keith Joseph at that meeting by reciting a list of jobs that needed doing in his constituency. He pushed his shadow spokesman on to the back foot by saying, "Is it not more sensible to put aside labels—whether we are communist or right-wing? Instead of spending large sums keeping people idle, should we not think of ways of spending some, if not all, of that money employing people in tasks which would give them dignity, which would add considerably to the well-being of the local community and which the Government could enter in the national income figures and would lead to an increase in national wealth?" That was my first encounter with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Forth: I am provoked to rise to my feet by the hon. Gentleman's passing and ritualistic reference—it was not a casual reference, as nothing about the hon. Gentleman is casual—to scrapheaps and to people being cast aside. The hon. Gentleman must visit jobcentres, as I do, and talk to the very dedicated staff. He must know that everyone who has the misfortune of losing his or her job is treated as an individual by caring jobcentre officers and officials and offered a wide range of possibilities. How does he square that reality with his reference to scrapheaps and to people being cast aside?
  Mr. Field: I invite the Minister to join my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and me on a visit to Birkenhead jobcentre. If the Minister looks at the jobs
  270
  advertised there, he will see that most employers are so ashamed of the wages that they can get away with offering that they do not state those wages—if there are wages attached to the job, as many of the positions are on a commission basis only. We must draw a distinction between the dedication of the jobcentre staff—to whom we pay proper tribute—and the Government who believe that they cannot do anything, beyond the measures that they currently employ, to expand the job base.
  The debate is about whether there is a set number of jobs and how those jobs are determined. It raises the big issues of our time. Does training by itself represent an adequate response to the problem and will it enable Britain to go up market and reach a position of full employment? Should we be more active in the labour market—given the fact that the market cannot adjust itself—in using people's skills and in matching them to the work that must be done? My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk has been raising that issue for the 30 years that I have known him, and it is what the Bill is about. He gently pressed the Government to recognise how their response to the measures that he proposed will appear to people outside: casual and lacking in concern.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I was in Yorkshire last week and had passed on to me, anonymously, the concerns of staff members of the Employment Service about the jobs that they are forced to offer. From the list of jobs that I was shown, one was for a warehouse assistant, full-time—£10 plus benefits. Another was for a full-time agent working in the local community—commission only.
  Mr. Field: On the first job that my hon. Friend mentioned, it is probably illegal to offer work under those conditions, given the requirements for income support. We shall leave that aside. That is not a reflection on the dedication or the concern of the staff of the Employment Service. It just shows how the labour market will adjust to the circumstances. All of us have witnessed the rise in unemployment in our constituencies and the fall in real wages. Most employers, knowing what they can get away with, use the jobcentres and do not even say what the wage will be.
  My second meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk was when he wrote a pamphlet for the Low Pay Unit, an organisation that I worked for, on the unemployment trap. In the days before we were as dependent on means-tested benefits as we are today, he was a prophet calling attention to the way in which ordinary people have to make rational decisions about their well-being and that of their family, and how for a growing number of people then—now a huge number—the trade-off, if there is any, between working and not working is small.
  That is the background to my association with my hon. Friend and thus my willingness to sponsor with him the Right to Work Bill, not because we agreed on every proposal after we had discussed it, but because we both believed that it was an opportunity that the Government could seize to show that they were serious about dealing with the issue. We did not think that it would be the great panacea or that it would be achieved in the timetable that we had set in the Bill. We included the timetable because we were anxious to show our constituents that we had a sense of urgency about the issue, because many of them had been without work for many years.

  271
  I am here to support my hon. Friend in his request for two things: first, for the Government to get an independent and serious costing of the proposals. Given the way in which they have handed out contracts—I shall not say "to their friends"—the Government believe in job creation. They have handed out contracts to inquire into this and that, and to report on this and that, for which I am grateful, as that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk knows, what job creation is about. We now ask, as a sign of the Government's true faith, that they consider seriously every proposal given to them, as a means of tackling the evil of unemployment.
  The second request is for a real costing of unemployment. Let us leave aside whether the total is 2 million or 4 million. Let us leave aside the number of workers who will come into the labour market who are not registered as unemployed but who would be there if jobs were available. There are armies of workers who, because they do not receive benefit, do not register as unemployed, but that does not mean that they do not want work and would not work if it was available. The Minister turns his nose up at these proposals, but anybody who wanted to indulge in rational debate and was confident of his position would have commissioned both of these studies a long time ago. Not to do so would suggest to the House and, more importantly, our constituents, that the Government do not want to know the information, because it would make their position less tenable.
  I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West. I pay tribute to the way in which he chaired the Select Committee on Employment and the way in which he encouraged a thousand ideas to blossom in it. He did not feel it necessary to take a Stalinist line on what the truth is, or to say that every report must come down on the small area of agreed truth. I think that the report will be considered as a landmark, because it will show that we have moved away from the heady days of the 1980s, when we believed that markets could solve everything. No one is saying that we do not believe in markets. The House is saying that we want markets to work where they can work. Where they cannot work, where millions of people want to work but cannot, we have a duty to try to find ways of extending work opportunities to them which are useful and beneficial, raise their status and add to the national well-being.
  I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk for the way in which—despite all the rebuffs that he has received, often from his own side—he has never lost sight of the anger and despair of a large number of our constituents. Even though they might put on brave faces for some public events and seem as if they do not care about work, as if they have managed to sort their lives out and are happily getting on with things, they feel real despair at having a label put on them as unemployed and therefore having no useful role to play in Great Britain today.
  10.17 am
  Ms Angela Eagle: I support many of the comments that have been made today. It is important that we have been given the chance to debate the extremely interesting and thoughtful report from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who chaired the Select Committee on Employment, on which I had the honour to serve.
  272
  The report contains certain recommendations, but the Committee considered in detail some of the things that we thought that the Government should consider given the persistence of mass unemployment in this country. When we considered mass unemployment, one thing of which we were well aware was that it includes an increasing number of the long-term unemployed. Many of the policy prescriptions that we considered were not aimed at people who go through a short period of unemployment and then move back into the labour market. They clearly do not need the same support and help as those who become long-term unemployed, in a labour market in which the pace of change accelerates ever more rapidly, when the skills that they may have had become obsolete when they have been away from the labour market for a long time and lost much of their confidence.
  The evidence that we took suggested that employers regard the long-term unemployed with suspicion, because they know that they have been away from the labour market. They are increasingly reluctant to hire such people, to whom our report paid particular attention. The Right to Work Bill—so ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell)—is one way of dealing with the problem, and many other ways are suggested in the report. One suggestion is the intermediate labour market—a halfway house mixing education with training in work experience. The Wise group in Edinburgh gave us some impressive evidence about that. It is a practical way of reattaching people who have become detached from the labour market, giving them back their confidence and reskilling them.
  As the report points out, there are no panaceas, certainly on the supply side. There is only so much that we can do to return our labour market to its full capacity. Training and work combinations of the kind suggested by the Wise group are not cheap, but we believe that in the end they are very effective in getting rid of persistent long-term mass unemployment.
  When taking evidence, we were struck by the Government's extraordinary reluctance to give us a basic statistic. We wanted to know the cost of keeping more than 2 million people—at some points in the past few years, the figure has risen to 3 million—permanently or semi-permanently on the dole. When we took evidence from the then Secretary of State for Employment, she told us that the cost was approximately £9,000 per head. Appendix 1 of the report gives our best estimate of the cost of mass unemployment—£8,400 per claimant—and we calculate that the total cost to the Exchequer is £24,000,315,000. That is a good deal of money, which is currently being wasted on passive support.
  We must be able to do something more active and innovative—something that is more likely to return people to the labour market. The Government should not simply condemn the thousands of long-term unemployed in Wallasey—some of those whom I have met have been unemployed for 15 years, and have little chance of returning to the labour market as things stand-to continuing unemployment. Nor should the Government blame them for their predicament. That has been the Government's other main response: they have made benefit more conditional, telling people that they must do more in order to qualify, such as sending out CVs for jobs that do not exist.

  273
  Of course it is important to teach people how to write CVs; of course it is right to try to motivate them to search for jobs. But it is also important to make them employable—to equip them so that they have a reasonable chance of finding work, rather than forcing them to send out endless streams of CVs with no hope of ever succeeding. Having to deal with that kind of rejection is even worse than simply being stuck on the dole.
  We want a much more innovative, caring and realistic approach to solving the problems of long-term unemployment than the Government have adopted. The report asks them to consider such an approach. We want them to pay special attention to the plight of the long-term unemployed, and consider how they can be reattached to the labour market. We have heard numerous arguments about the substitution and "deadweight" effects of job creation schemes, and I expect that we shall hear some from the Minister today, but such arguments do not apply nearly as much to the long-term unemployed as they might to someone who has only just lost a job and is still relatively close to the labour market.
  I hope that the Minister will devote particular attention to that group, and will tell us what the Government plan to do to return them to a labour market from which many have been absent for a decade.
  10.24 am
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The Scottish National party welcomes many elements of the report. We especially welcome its emphasis on the long-term unemployed, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. Most of us agree that that is where the biggest difficulty arises, in terms of the lives of such people and the need to return them to work.
  While I accept that the workstart programme has had some beneficial effects, I note that the Employment Committee was equally clear about the fact that it has not created many new jobs. Ultimately, it is the creation of new jobs that will solve the problem; workstart is only a partial solution. The Committee stresses the importance of training in employment, and the Scottish National party supports the idea of a national apprenticeship scheme, which would go some way towards achieving such a system.
  We also support the Committee's second main recommendation. It calls for a full financial report on the effects of workstart, and for a much wider assessment that would include figures relating to the number of people who have remained in employment after the one-year workstart period. That ought to be the measure of long-term success.
  We believe, however, that the key recommendation is the rather more controversial suggestion of a pilot scheme to try out the right to work-workfare principle, based on the Right to Work Bill. I shall say more about my party's views shortly, but let me say at once that the SNP is opposed to workfare in principle. We should need to look closely at any suggested pilot scheme. Words can be used to mean very different things, and I am concerned about some of the language in the report. There is talk of the pilot scheme being based on the 1995 Bill, but I am not sure what that will mean in practice.
  274
  For example, a crucial part of the Bill was the removal of any real choice. Those who refused a job would be entitled to only a quarter of the payments available to a person who was making himself available for work. I am not sure how that squares with the Committee's insistence that compulsion will not be necessary. It is, I think, agreed that most of the evidence suggests that compulsion is not a good idea.
  Sir Ralph Howell: Surely we have reached a point at which we must choose between the right to be unemployed and the right to work. The hon. Lady and her party will have to make up their minds about what they want. I believe that, while the right to work would constitute a big step forward, defending the right to be unemployed is unacceptable.
  Ms Cunningham: It is not a question of a right to unemployment. Of course everyone has a right to work, but the balance is changed considerably when an element of compulsion is introduced. In its evidence to the Committee, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations opposed any compulsive element in workfare, which it considered would ultimately have a detrimental effect on the whole attitude of the unemployed, especially their motivation and approach to learning and training. It might also have a detrimental effect on the labour market: employers might not be keen to take on reluctant workers, feeling that people were not there because they wanted to be there. Ultimately, it would encourage job substitution.
  The 1995 Bill defined useful employment, which could not be refused without severe financial penalty, as caring, environmental or minor infrastructure work. Will that definition be the basis of the pilot scheme? If so, what sort of jobs will be covered? If they are associated with work that ought to be done anyway, they should be available not just in connection with the pilot scheme. The 1995 Bill also sought to abolish the right to income support and unemployment benefit after an initial three-year period, with persons not in employment having to register at a work centre. That gives rise to the issue of payment at £3 per hour, which effectively becomes the minimum wage. My party supports the minimum wage but, unlike Labour, we are not prepared to duck how much it should be. We do not regard £3 per hour as civilised and would not support a measure based on that amount. We approve the figure proposed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the TUC for England and Wales, which is in the region of £4.10 per hour.
  The 1995 Bill made an inadequate attempt to provide for parents, as it covered only parents of children under five years of age and a gross income of no more than £120 a week—not conditions to which we should agree, as they would cause great hardship.
  Any success with workstart appears to be limited to the short term. Real employment must take the form of new, long-term jobs. The Wise group's intermediate labour market is welcome but will require sustained, consistent and prolonged Government investment—and that has not been forthcoming. A policy of full employment should not be discarded as being unattainable. If that objective is taken together with job creation, one could devise a

  275
  fundamentally different approach to unemployment that would contrast sharply with present Government policy—which, in many cases, merely creates unemployment.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady tell the House what she means by full employment?
  Ms Cunningham: There will always be structural unemployment, when a person chooses to leave a job to go to another and may be unemployed for a few weeks in between. There is no reason for the high number of unemployed people and lengthy unemployment that exist today.
  As a first step, the transfer of housing capital debt to central Government and the release of funding for house building and renovation would immediately create work in the construction industry. Government policies that produce unemployment include privatisation, as with job losses in the gas industry, market testing and local government reorganisation. The abolition of wages councils should have led, by the Government's own logic, to employers taking on more workers, but that has not happened.
  The emotive language used when debating the right to work-workfare is misleading, with constant references to the unemployed being paid to remain idle and the underlying assumption that most of them do not want to work. That is not my experience. The majority of unemployed people want to work but there are no jobs for them. It is significant that the Government decided last year to scrap the separate Department of Employment and to merge it with the Department for Education. Nowhere in the right to work-workfare proposals is there an assessment of the short-term and long-term needs of commerce and industry in respect of employee skills.
  The Scottish National party supports as positive approaches the principle of lifelong learning and specific proposals such as an integrated training and employment scheme. We see no long-term solutions from the present Government.
  10.35 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: As I know that my colleague on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), wants to speak, I will be brief.
  I suppose that in the preamble to his speech on the constitution tonight, the Prime Minister will indicate changes to parliamentary procedures that may give right hon. and hon. Members more time to consider measures before they come before the House, which would be welcome. All members of the new Education and Employment Select Committee were shocked that we managed to convince the Government to debate workfare. Other Select Committees will be keen to ensure that the hard work that they put into their reports will be recognised by the Government as a useful part of the democratic process and will be the subject of debates in the Chamber.
  Although I do not know what will be the Minister's response to the debate, judging by his interventions we can guess that it will be negative. The Government reject not only the report's proposals but consistently criticise the performance of existing programmes that they initiated, such as workstart and the Wise project. The then
  276
  Employment Select Committee was denied information by the Government, who denigrate schemes but offer no analysis as evidence to support the claim that workfare would not work. I refer not only to answering the famous question, "Is the cost of an unemployed person £8,000 or £9,000?" At one stage, the Secretary of State argued that a price could not be put on keeping someone unemployed because one would have to know the value of the job to which the individual could go. The Government were saying, "Social security scroungers do not want work but just benefits. They are a burden on the nation. Not only are they responsible for being in that position because they are unskilled and untrained, but we do not even class them as people. We do not know whether there are jobs for them to go to, so we cannot estimate the cost in respect of the individual and his family." The Government would be more believable if the Minister could provide an analysis of the workstart and Wise projects, which we failed to elicit from the Government's evidence to the Committee.
  The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) said that the Scottish National party would view with concern any attempt to introduce workfare. Members of the Committee followed in the footsteps of the Secretary of State and went to the United States, which is the home of workfare. Despite the fact that the Committee split into small groups and scoured America, at least for the few days that we were there, we could find no evidence of workfare. Even the most Republican-minded right-wing states that tried to get people back to work discovered first, that people actually wanted to work, and secondly, that it cost money. Many of the unemployed in America, as in Britain, are women, so child care facilities were needed.
  The message that we brought back from America is that there is no financial short cut to getting people back into work and that if we want to encourage women back into work, we have to provide child care facilities. Given the Minister's most recent performance before the Employment Committee, I do not hold out much hope that he will announce plans for child care in his speech today.
  The report has been a worthwhile exercise, if only to bring to the attention of the wider population the fact that there are alternatives—Government-funded alternatives. I do not know just how many schemes the Government have started but then stopped before they have had a chance to make any impression. The Government will not convince the Opposition or, indeed, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell), that they are taking the right approach. Unless they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is and do an in-depth analysis of the success or otherwise of those schemes, the argument about the need for the Government to be pro-active in the labour market will continue.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Ken Eastham: When we embarked on our study, which lasted 14 months, many members of the Select Committee already understood many of the factors involved, so there are no shocks in many of our conclusions.
  I want to nail the folly that is evident in this Chamber almost every week, when members of the Government boast about low pay as though that is good for the workers and good for the nation. People know, in their heart of

  277
  hearts, that that is not true. If people do not have purchasing power, they do not buy clothes, furniture or houses; there is a general rundown as a result of those poverty payments.
  As was pointed out to me some years ago, when there was slavery in America at least the slaves were fed. Today, some working people in Britain receive such poor pay that they are denied a decent diet. Doctors talk about the malnutrition among the very poor in our society. [Interruption.] I wish that, on occasions, the Minister would be a little more serious when dealing with unemployment matters. He seems to think that it is a gala day and he just sits on the Bench laughing. He does not take seriously the misery of the unemployed. Oh, the hon. Gentleman suddenly looks up with great concern, but it is rare that he looks serious when we are discussing a serious matter.
  I want to raise a point about jobcentres. Perhaps the Minister would stop grinning for a moment. I want him to raise some of our concerns with the managers of jobcentres. I wish that this debate was televised so that 20 million people could see how the Minister is behaving; then he would get his ticket at the next general election.
  During the past fortnight, I heard of the case of a man who had been out of work for months and was desperate to find a job. He went to a jobcentre, took a card advertising a vacancy and went to see the firm involved. He worked for it for two weeks, but never received any pay. He went back to the jobcentre but was told, "We gave you a card and you got a job." He is now on crisis loans because he cannot even get back on to benefits. He is living hand to mouth. I wrote to the manager of the jobcentre, but was told that his job was only to put a card on the wall and that he was not responsible for what happened. Somebody must take some responsibility. I believe that both the Government and jobcentre managers have responsibility.
  Bogus jobs are being advertised. I can tell the Minister that I will be giving this case some publicity—[Interruption.] The Minister is a bit of a clown, sitting there puffing and blowing. It is an absolute disgrace that, although he is the Minister with responsibility for employment, he is scathing and casual about a serious matter that the House is debating for just an hour and a half.
  It is a great myth that people do not work. People have been saying that for years, but over that time it has been shown quite conclusively that people desperately want to work. Being unemployed causes great misery. The workstart project referred to by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell) has some merit and we have seen one or two such schemes. It has certainly led to new thinking about what the Government could do. It is interesting to note that even the Confederation of British Industry said that employers could help to improve the skills match through work experience. That is commendable. No one could say that the CBI is a supporter of the Labour party; basically, it supports the Conservative party. However, it is singing the same tune as the Labour party and the hon. Member for North Norfolk.
  I want to say a great deal more, but I realise that my time is up. I am grateful for the five minutes that I have had.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the report "The Right to Work/Workfare". I give a commitment that if, after the next general election, I am the Minister responsible for employment, I will take the report out of the bucket, dust it down and give a rather more adequate response to its recommendations.
  Time does not allow us to deal appropriately with all the issues raised both in the report and by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell) in his Right to Work Bill. However, despite the inadequate time, it is important to set out clearly a range of issues on which the Labour party has given commitments. The nation's most important capital asset is its people—their knowledge, skills, endeavours and commitments. Under this Government, over a decade and more, a mass of talent has gone to waste. Since November 1990, when the Prime Minister took office, 11 million people have been unemployed at least once. Since the last general election, 8.7 million have been unemployed at least once. In my region, the north-west of England, 1 million people have been unemployed at least once since the last general election.
  The numbers of long-term unemployed do not move down consistently or dramatically. Once a male becomes unemployed, he usually becomes long-term unemployed. Under this Government's training packages, it is almost impossible for him to return to a meaningful job. Of those who do manage to return, 50 per cent. are out of work again within a year. Last year, more than 400,000 of our fellow citizens who became unemployed but found another job were unemployed again by January this year.
  It is not just a matter of losing a job; having lost it, it is almost impossible to find another one. When people do find jobs, they are usually short-term, insecure and part-time. Nine out of 10 new jobs created in the economy fall into that category. About 1 million full-time jobs have been lost since the start of the recession. Those jobs, in the main, have been replaced by part-time, insecure and low-paid work. It is no wonder that the country feels insecure when people have a one in three chance of losing their jobs. In the first quarter of this year, more than 50,000 jobs in manufacturing and in the key sectors of the construction industry were lost and there will be further losses between now and the end of the year. Yet despite those statistics, the Government say that the recession is over. The truth is that no one's job is secure; no one has the certainty of continuing employment.
  The Government's deregulation policies have failed dramatically. They have failed in respect of our European competitors as we lag behind them in investment, training and competitiveness. We lag behind them also in our ability to develop our economy. There is a lack of capital investment in key sectors of the economy.
  Let us take the construction industry as an example. It is incredible that, at a time of the highest level of homelessness for 30 years, more than 250,000 building workers are languishing on the dole. Capital assets worth £6 billion are locked in local authority bank accounts, yet the Government will not allow their phased release so that construction and infrastructure projects can go ahead, the construction industry can get back to work and public and private sector incentives to restructure the economy and our capital infrastructure can be provided. It is simple

  279
  common sense to bring together those capital assets with people who are unemployed to create the types of jobs that we need in the construction industry. That is just one practical example of the significant steps that could be taken.
  The Government have staggered from despair to counter-despair in trying to massage unemployment figures and the withdrawal of resources from training budgets. We are spending more than £1 billion less on training than we were at the start of the recession and 600,000 young people are in neither full-time education, nor training, nor employment. They are on the margins of society. Yet what do the Government offer? They offer pilot project work—not for 600,000 or 30,000 people, but for a mere 6,000. Eight weeks after the scheme was supposed to start, the Government still cannot tell us about contracts in relation to trainers: who is training, what type of work is it, and what access is there to pilot job opportunities?
  In setting the contracts for the scheme, it seems that the Government are reducing the resources. In doing so, they are refusing access to training as a component of the pilot projects. The Minister smiles, but I hope that he will jump up in a moment to give me the answer that he has been unable to supply for the past eight weeks. If he does, it would be better late than never and I would congratulate him on doing so. The pilot project is supposed to be at the heart of the Government's drive to give people access to the labour market. Yet, in the contracts, which are to be announced, there is no training element. That is a complete nonsense. The work provided is skivvy labour, and there is no intention of promoting and developing real jobs.
  We should consider the plight of young people. They are living in communities scarred by unemployment, where one in five non-pensioner households have no working member. Their self-esteem has been destroyed, they are living on the margins of society, and there is involvement in crime, drug and alcohol abuse and sexual exploitation. That should not be our young people's experience as we approach the millennium. They should be part of society, not forced to its margins. There should be community and peer support, a sense of belonging, access to social facilities, vocational guidance and support, training and jobsearch, meaningful links with responsible employers, work experience, job opportunities and the ability to move in the wider labour market to seek out better job prospects.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently proposed a comprehensive set of fiscal incentives to help the long-term unemployed and young people, which I commend to the House. They are priorities for an incoming Labour Government.
  The Select Committee report is correct in its analysis about the failure in the United Kingdom labour market to provide access to long-term job opportunities. The Government have two choices: to continue to tax for failure to pay the huge benefits bill, or to begin investing in success. We need a Government who are committed to the latter, and to the provision of training and retraining opportunities, access to the labour market for the long-term unemployed and job security through training for young people entering the labour market for the first time.
  280
  The Government have a role to play with employers. They cannot stand idly by and allow the market to determine that we have a pool of long-term unemployed people of—depending on the cycle of the economy—between 2 million and 3 million. They are prepared to allow 500,000 people at any one time to live on the margins of society. The Government have a responsibility. If they will not take it, they should move over and let in a Government who will.
  10.53 am
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): This debate has been light on Members and heavy on cant and nonsense, which I suppose is no surprise given its nature. I counted as many as six Labour Back Benchers crowding the Chamber for a debate to which they claim to attach such importance. I counted one hon. Member from the Scottish National party and one Liberal Democrat. I say that because—[Interruption.] I have touched a raw nerve with Opposition Members, and so I should. Anyone who takes the trouble to read Hansard might think that, given the amount of emotional claptrap that we have heard from Opposition Members, the debate concerns many of them. I want the record to stand: ix Labour Back Benchers were present.
  I experienced a brief moment of excitement when the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) talked about Labour party commitments. He began with a rousing commitment and I made a note of his words. He said that, in contrast to the Government's response to the Select Committee report which we are discussing, his party, excitingly and dynamically, would
  "give a…more adequate response".
  That is new Labour with knobs on if ever I saw it.
  We are in exciting new territory in responding to all the problems that Labour Members have been ranting about this morning. The hon. Member for Makerfield said that he would list the Labour party's commitments in order to deal with all those problems. I am still waiting. I am being generous in saying that I counted one and a half commitments. The half that I identified was what I assume was a financial commitment—which I also assume the hon. Gentleman has agreed with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—to increase training budgets. He did not put a figure on the commitment, so we shall have to hold our breath to see what will happen. We await a further episode to hear the commitments.
  By the way, the hon. Member for Makerfield does not read his post very closely, because I wrote to him yesterday giving him the answer to the question that he reasonably asked about the providers of contracts for project work. I will not delay the House or use up even more of the very short time that I have available except to refer him to my letter of yesterday that gives him the information that he wants.
  Uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of all people made a rather infelicitous reference in which I am sure he said—we shall check the record—in passing that there had been an increase in unemployment in all our constituencies. That sparked me into looking at the movement of unemployment in the constituencies of this small but dedicated handful of Members who are present. I find that unemployment since

  281
  December 1992—[HON. MEMBERS: "1979."] I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say 1979, but I shall happily talk about that. We all know that unemployment across Europe is significantly higher than in 1979 and that this country is performing a lot better. If I had more time, I would go into that at some length. I want the record to show that unemployment has fallen in Birkenhead by 1,300, in Makerfield by 1,300, in Leicester, West by 1,300, in Wallasey by 1,200 and in North Norfolk by more than 1,000.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to increasing numbers of long-term unemployed people. That is also an inaccurate statement. I shall be charitable by referring to International Labour Organisation figures—hon. Members will not often hear me quoting them, but for this purpose I shall, since Labour Members find them more attractive—that show that long-term unemployment has fallen over the past year from 43 to 40 per cent. and the claimant count has fallen by more than 500,000 since the mid-1980s. The debate has regrettably been characterised by some inaccuracies from Opposition Members, on which I hope they want to reflect.
  The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) trotted out the glib phrase about the concept of full employment which is frequently heard in these debates and on which we should dwell. Opposition Members have implied that, somehow, everybody could have a job if only the Government of the day did something different. There is no evidence from around the world to support that. Even in Japan, unemployment is 3 or 4 per cent. and rising. In the United States, it is 5 per cent. and steady, and in France, Germany and Italy, the countries most admired by Opposition Members—our partners in Europe whose models they would adopt—the unemployment rate is 11 or 12 per cent.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forth: I cannot give way, because I am running out of time.
  Opposition Members promote the idea of full employment without mentioning a number or a quantity. They should pursue that argument only if they are prepared to say exactly what they mean.
  Mr. Frank Field: What about the report?
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman should simmer down. I agreed to restrict my remarks to allow Opposition Members time to speak. That is what I have done. I am now replying to the points that were made in the debate. I know that is old-fashioned, but I thought that I would make an attempt.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

  Private Finance Initiative
  [Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Treasury Committee of Session 1995–96 on The Private Finance Initiative (House of Commons Paper No. 146), and Fourth Special Report from the Committee containing the Government's Reply thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 513).]
  11 am
  Sir Thomas Arnold: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the sixth report of the Treasury Committee on the private finance initiative. Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his recently published response. I welcome the fact that he has taken a number of the points that we raised very much to heart.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly explain the background to our report. The private finance initiative was launched in 1992. Its early progress was slow and in our report on the 1994 Budget we noted that it had failed to encourage significant private investment and expressed concern that it was unclear whether it was intended to supplement or to replace public expenditure. When conducting our inquiry into the 1995 Budget we recognised that our concerns had not altered, which led us to decide to undertake a short inquiry into the PFI.
  The Committee identified six issues: additionality, the control of public spending, obtaining value for money, the bidding process, the transfer of risk and accountability. I shall deal with each in turn.
  It is clear that at the start of the PFI spending was regarded as additional not substitutional, but its substitutional character has increasingly come to the fore. That has raised a number of important questions. For example, if a scheme expected to be funded under the PFI failed to attract sufficient funds, would the deficit be met from the public purse? How would the priority of the projects be determined—by an assessment of need or by the availability of funding?
  A key feature of the PFI is that the public sector contracts to buy services rather than assets. That reduces capital expenditure in the short term, but increases current spending available to purchase services in the longer term. It raises a considerable worry over the control and monitoring of public expenditure in current and future years. There is no central control over the PFI commitments being entered into by a diversity of public bodies. That was a matter of considerable concern to the Committee.
  The Government's response shows that our concern has been taken seriously and I welcome that. As I understand it—the Minister may wish to comment further on this—the Treasury will publish in the Red Book the aggregate level of public expenditure implicit in PFI deals and will monitor and control commitments under the PFI as they develop.
  The Committee identified the need for greater clarity in exactly how perceived value for money benefits accrue. For instance, it identified the relative importance of different cost savings. The Government's response identifies particular areas where value for money benefits accrue.
  The process of competitive bidding is fundamental to the success of the PFI. There was, however, a series of criticisms—at times conflicting—from private sector

  283
  firms about the nature and cost of the process. Some contractors felt that the specifications for projects were insufficiently defined—although broad specifications were intended to encourage innovative bids—while others were concerned that the rigid definition of specifications prevented the scheme from operating effectively. A common concern was that tendering should be encouraged only for projects that had a high probability of materialising and should not be undertaken as a mechanical exercise, even when a PFI option is unlikely to be suitable. I am pleased to report that the Treasury has already acted to address these concerns.
  According to the Treasury, an important feature of the PFI is that it allows the proper allocation of risk so that those most able to manage the risk are responsible for it. Evidence presented to the Committee suggested that, in the past at least, that has not always been so. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that.
  The House takes accountability very seriously. Although the PFI aims to encourage private investment in sectors previously funded by the public sector, the PFI does not eliminate public spending. On the contrary, the vast majority of PFI projects will involve some form of public expenditure. It is one of the important jobs of Parliament, through a range of mechanisms, to scrutinise that expenditure. During our inquiry, we were informed that details of PFI projects might be suitable to the constraints of commercial confidentiality. The Committee found that unacceptable, and commented:
  "We do not think that the House would or should sacrifice its rights to see any details of Government spending it sees fit."
  I conclude by referring in particular to the final paragraph of the report, where we make a series of proposals and recommendations, including the following: that a breakdown between PFI projects funded via user charges and those funded by leasing charges and future public expenditure should be published, and whether it remains appropriate for private finance options to be tested in all projects or whether some might be excluded from the outset. The Government's response outlines a series of circumstances in which the PFI might prove inappropriate.
  We propose that a demonstration of cost savings on specific projects should be provided to show how the higher cost of capital in the private sector was offset. The Government's response shows that, typically, operating savings of 14 per cent. and construction savings of 7 per cent. can be achieved compared with a publicly funded alternative.
  We recommend that full and transparent accounting be maintained, with a full statement of expenditure commitments implicit under PFI contracts, and that details of PFI projects should be published at departmental level.
  I should make it clear that, in principle, the Treasury Select Committee welcomes the private finance initiative and recognises that a huge amount of complicated detail will need to be mastered if the policy is to progress successfully. The Minister's response is a welcome start to the next stage of that process.
  11.8 am
  Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome the comments of the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), who fairly reflected the areas of
  284
  consensus in the Committee's report and members' collective concerns about the PFI. I should like to express some more critical views of the issue, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
  I was previously a member of a local authority that was engaged in many partnerships with the private sector, so I have no philosophical or principled objection to them. I believe that partnership is appropriate where the private sector can work with the public sector to bring additional value to a project. Therefore, although my approach to the PFI is slightly sceptical, I am prepared to accept that it may have benefits if it attracts additional resources to important projects from which the public will benefit.
  Having considered the evidence and having further read the Government's response to the Committee's report, I am now cynical rather than sceptical. It is obvious mat what we have now is not additional expenditure on projects, but a replacement for what was initially planned public expenditure. There is now a substitution of funding to allow the Government to cut their public sector borrowing requirement commitments, perhaps to provide some leeway before the next election. In some respects, we are embarking on potentially the biggest deferred purchase scheme in British financial history, and it is being proposed by a Government who criticised local authorities—such as the one of which I was a member—for previous deferred purchase schemes.
  There has been an interesting shift in the Government's position in another respect. The manual on the way in which schemes are compared, which the Committee considered, states that the Government are neutral on whether the private or public sector route would be the most appropriate. In their latest response, the Government have made it clear that they believe the private finance route to be better, and that it will generally provide savings. That is a distinct shift in emphasis.
  The Government's main claim about the possibility of efficiency savings is that the private sector will produce, design, build and operate schemes and will carefully incorporate in them low maintenance costs for the future, as it will be responsible for operating those projects. If the Government are saying that the public sector is incapable of designing low-maintenance schemes, that says a lot for their procurement policies in the past 17 years. If that is the Government's complaint, it must be possible to improve the way in which they purchase in the public sector.
  One of the main reasons why maintenance problems emerge is that sufficient capital is not spent on designing better projects. All too often, that is a product of Britain's financial systems, which concentrate so much on controlling initial costs and not enough on downstream revenue implications. In that respect, the PFI is a step forward, as it enables us to look at the life costs of a project rather than its initial costs. My criticism is a reflection on the Government's financing policies of the past 17 years as much as on anything else.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the way in which the Treasury has dealt with the accounting of these matters in the past 17 years has differed from the method that it used under previous Labour Governments?
  Mr. Betts: I am suggesting that many people in local government will know that the regime has become an

  285
  awful lot tighter and more rigid in the past 17 years, which has often forced the making of wrong judgments at the beginning of projects. I welcome the Government's decision to look at resource accounting, which the Committee is considering in a separate report, and I hope that they will look further in that direction. That will be an interesting debate for the future; resource accounting may resolve some of the difficulties.
  The Government claim that savings will always be made, but the PFI is hardly cost free. The Committee heard a lot of evidence about the bureaucracy and delays in the procedure, including evidence on the Stonegrove annexe to the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, which has been a committed priority for three years and has been in the PFI pipeline for approximately 12 months. Examples of delays were repeated in evidence given by representatives of the construction industry.
  The other day, I was reading The Mail on Sunday—a newspaper that is not normally sympathetic to the Labour party—which carried a report on the Walsgrave hospital in Coventry. The contract for the PFI scheme at that hospital ran to 17,000 pages and a cost of £500,000—just for the beginning of the project's documentation. Someone will presumably have to account for that cost, which probably will be borne by the public purse. Similar examples are repeated around the country.
  The report referred to difficulties with cost control in PFI schemes, and the Chairman of the Committee also referred to this matter. In a recent debate on the health service, we criticised the Minister for saying that the external financing limit was to be the control because it covers only the forthcoming three years. Many of the costs of PFI schemes, however, do not become apparent until at least three years after a project has been initiated. I am pleased that the Government are now setting up a proper monitoring system and that they will publish figures on the downstream commitments of PFI schemes. That is a step forward, although I would have been happier if more details had been provided.
  There is great difficulty in making accurate comparisons between PFI and publicly funded schemes. There is no up-front cost in a PFI scheme, the costs of which can be considered only on a year-by-year basis once it gets off the ground. Under current rules, a public sector scheme will always have that cost—it is a hurdle to get over. The chairman of the PFI panel, who was appointed by the Government, said in evidence to the Committee that this gave an in-built bias to PFI schemes, rather than to traditionally funded schemes. If they want to make fair comparisons, the Government must look at their approach to the control mechanisms of publicly funded schemes. I hope that resource accounting will increasingly be viewed as a better way of dealing with those issues.
  The Government responded to our concerns that we are handing decision-making powers over to private sector funding consortiums by saying that decisions on which projects go ahead remain with the Government. However, this year's Budget cut public capital expenditure by £2 billion. If a project has been identified as a priority—such as the annexe at the Royal Hallamshire hospital—but no PFI scheme is available to complete it, are the Government guaranteeing that public funding will be available to enable it to go ahead? The Royal Hallamshire
  286
  hospital has already worked with three firms for nearly a year, two of which pulled out at the last minute. If the Government are not prepared to give that guarantee, they are saying that schemes will go ahead only if a PFI funder is willing to complete the project. In other words, the responsibility for deciding which projects are completed will have passed to the private sector, and that is worrying. It is one of the fundamental criticisms of the scheme and the Government must reply to it.
  There are real problems with risk transfer, which is at the heart of the Government's message. They believe that as they are transferring the risk from the public to the private sector, they can stand back and any mistakes will be picked up by the private sector. Arthur Andersen's experience with the national insurance computer—and the Government's triumphant lauding of the fact that the £10 million losses will be borne by a private sector firm—will not encourage private firms to participate in similar projects. The Government should be worried about that.
  It is relatively easy to transfer risk where a private customer pays for goods or a service produced under a PFI scheme. I draw the attention of the House to the combined heat and power project in Sheffield, which is not a PFI scheme as such but a partnership scheme. Sheffield university, local shops and other private sector institutions can purchase a heat source from a partnership company. That is clear—the risk lies with a company selling its product in the marketplace. It is a lot more difficult to transfer risk when the Government are paying for that service, and they must make sure that a clear mechanism is established so that risk is really transferred to the private sector. If risk transfer takes place, there is a further problem with many such projects.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Betts: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will not give way because my time is limited and other hon. Members want to speak.
  If risk is transferred, control is often transferred as well. That is a great worry and it has been raised in respect of hospital projects. It was clear from the evidence to the Committee that it is not possible to transfer non-clinical and clinical services as part of such schemes. The chief executive of Royal Hallamshire hospital at the Central Sheffield University Hospitals trust made that clear in his evidence. Further information has come from a hospital in Carlisle, where doctors have described a planned building as "more like a doss-house". That is because, to make the sums add up and ensure that, with the transfer of risk, the private sector can make its profit, more patients are being squeezed into wards. The hospital is trying to double up to make the project pay. That is a clear example of the PFI mechanism affecting the delivery of clinical services.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Betts: I must continue because others want to speak.
  It is clear from the evidence that it is especially difficult to transfer risk at the end of a project, whether it be Northern line tube trains or hospital or school buildings. There is not a free market in which to have real risk transfer. At the end of the 20 or 30-year—or even

  287
  longer—contract all that exists is a school, hospital or tube train for which there is no other use. On the other hand, the public sector needs the hospital, school or tube trains. In such circumstances, it is almost impossible to transfer risk in any real way.
  If risk is transferred, we risk transferring control. If we start building schools through PFI schemes, and therefore transfer risk, and the operators are to be paid according to the number of pupils who attend the school, there will be a market in schoolchildren. The Government may be considering that scenario. The operators of the schools will advertise to get more children to get a bigger revenue stream. The next step would be that the operators would want to control curriculums so that they can have real control of the number of children whom they can attract. That is how elements of public policy, for which public representatives should be accountable, will pass to the control of the private sector. I am worried about that and want a response from the Government.
  I am worried about accountability, to which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove rightly drew attention. I am worried that we will be able to audit schemes only after they have happened and that we will not get proper information about them beforehand because of commercial confidentiality. I fear corruption, because of the difficult problem of intellectual property rights and the fact that the schemes that will be compared will not involve comparing like with like. I am concerned that savings will come not from efficiency but, as with compulsory competitive tendering in local government, from cuts in the pay and conditions of low-paid workers.
  The PFI and the Select Committee report raise many questions that have not been answered. If the schemes were progressing wholesale, I would be worried that the unanswered questions would cause difficulties in future. However, I am also worried because the evidence suggests that they are not progressing but are bogged down in bureaucracy and administration. The private sector is not rushing forward to put in bids for such projects. If that continues, because the PFI involves substitution not additionality, there will be many projects that the Government admit are priorities that will not go ahead. Public services will be the poorer for that. A complete rethink is needed.
  I believe in the principle of partnership: in the public and private sector working together, where appropriate and where the private sector can bring additional benefit to bear on projects. However, I fear that the PFI goes back to a problem that has existed throughout the Government's life: the belief that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad. That principle is wrong and will not deliver better public services. I hope that the Government will rethink it, and quickly, before fewer and worse public services result from their scheme.
  11.23 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is a good example of how the Labour party, observing new Government policies, wants to criticise them bitterly but leaves the back door open so that when they succeed it can claim to have supported them all along and, no doubt, in a few years can tell us that they were its idea in the first place. I read the Treasury Select Committee report with interest and noticed its endorsement of the PFI as an
  288
  imaginative and laudable initiative. It is the latest of several detailed Government policies that the public have not generally noted amid the lurid headlines that we get in the press these days.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe tried to make great play of projects not making progress. In the short time available, I shall draw attention to a massive project that is making remarkable progress: the £100 million Darenth Park hospital, which is proposed by the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust. I have been the Member for Gravesham for nine years. Over that time, and for many years before, the people of Dartford and Gravesham have relied on three elderly hospitals—the Joyce Green, the West Hill in Dartford and the Gravesend and North Kent in my constituency. I became fed up with being told by the powers that be in the health service that my health district had the worst capital stock in the region while nothing was done to replace it with the modern district general hospital that we all wanted. The reason for that was simple.
  We have an excellent site at Darenth Park, cleared and ready for a hospital and owned by the NHS. The problem arose because of the old system, which is beloved of the Labour party. We had to go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a project and say, "Please can we have a cheque for £100 million?" Inevitably, we were told time and again, "£100 million? Are you sure that you really need it? Have you done a thorough review?" Time and again, we had thorough reviews to ensure that the project was designed to use the latest medical technology and so on. The years passed by.
  We proved that we needed the hospital. We proved that the proposed technology was ideal for the future of the hospital service in north-west Kent. Then we were told that £100 million was too large a part of the capital allocation to be given in one go and were asked whether it could be done in phases. We said that we did not want three old hospitals but one new one. They were proposing three old ones and a bit of a new one. That would have involved four sites, which is impractical. We were asked why we could not build the phased project on the site of one of the old sites. Someone who suggested to one of my constituents that we should build a phased hospital over 30 years at Joyce Green, would be in physical danger of needing to go to hospital.
  The PFI is a magnificent opportunity to get the new district general hospital for north-west Kent. The Government have asked the basic question: do we need to own the hospital or do we merely need the use of a hospital with the latest state-of-the-art technology to provide hospital services to the people of the district? Clearly, the latter is the case. The NHS is not a property company, but, quite properly, is in the business of providing excellent health care to the population.
  The capital costs for hospital trusts such as that which serves my area amount to about a quarter of their running costs. If those costs could be put into the PFI, it could well provide the solution to the problem. In the middle of a major construction recession, we, quite properly, went to the market and asked it whether it could put together a proposal for a private finance initiative to build a hospital for north-west Kent, all in one, on a cleared site at Darenth Park including the disposal of the old Joyce Green and West Hill hospitals and the release of the Gravesend and North Kent for other uses in the health service.

  289
  Surprise, surprise, in the middle of a recession in the construction industry, we found five consortia which wanted to bid. Four of them were up to it and went on to bid. Two were excellent and they have now been invited to tender by early next month. Those two tenders will be considered carefully by the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust, by the commissioners, the West Kent health authority, the Department of Health and the Treasury. We are looking to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and to Ministers in the Department of Health to analyse that thoroughly and rapidly in order to keep up with the programme.
  It will be of interest to the House to consider the consortia that bid for the Dartford and Gravesham hospital. They typically included a construction company, a catering and housekeeping company, an administration and co-ordination company and a financial company, working together within their consortium to put together management expertise and the critical mass to take forward such a hospital project.
  If all goes well, we hope, through the trust, the commissioning authority, the Department of Health and the Treasury, that a contract will be signed with one of the bidders by this autumn and that construction of the hospital will begin early next year. That is cracking good progress, but listening to Opposition Members one would think that nothing was going ahead. One might almost say that they hope that nothing is going ahead.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who is conspicuous by her absence in this debate, scoffed with great amusement and derision in the House at the fact that the Dartford and Gravesham proposal was in a list B, which she claimed some sneak from the Treasury had leaked to her. If a project making such good progress is in list B, the Labour party had better make its traditional conversion to Conservative policy even quicker in this case.
  I said earlier that the site of the third hospital, the Gravesend and North Kent hospital which is currently serving the local population, would be released. For my constituents, that would be icing on the cake of the brand new district general hospital at Darenth Park, because the Gravesend and North Kent site, which has been a hospital site ever since it was endowed by the Earls of Darnley in the last century, would become available for what we have long wanted in Gravesend, a community hospital, which would provide, through the Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust, a wide range of perhaps lower-tech services, but, above all, local services for the community. For instance, it would provide general practitioners' beds, beds for care of the elderly needing lower-tech hospital care, respite care and a wider range of out-patient departments, paramedical and diagnostic and other day care. The refurbishment and structuring for the 21st century of the community hospital in Gravesend at that site is costed at about £8 million, which the trust also hopes to advance in a PFI at that time.
  I welcome the Government's innovative PFI policy. Projects such as my own are rapidly coming to fruition. Notably, the Treasury Committee has positively and enthusiastically reviewed the details. It is encouraging that 16 or 17 years into a Conservative Government, massive new reforms and new ideas are coming forward with such
  290
  enthusiasm, which in this case will give reality to the dreams of my constituents—a brand new district general hospital, high tech, equipped for the 21st century to serve the people of north-west Kent.
  11.33 am
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not think that anyone is against the use of the PFI to bring forward projects in partnership with the private sector and add to the provision of public services. I do not know the circumstances of the project described by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). It may be as he describes it, but I am a little concerned that he does not believe that there are any questions about the need to ensure that we obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer, and that we are not driving the scheme simply as a means of substituting public money with private, but are trying to obtain a sum gain in terms of quality of service.
  Those should be the fundamental objective criteria by which the PFI is judged. By promoting the partnership between the private and public sectors there should be perceptible added value, either in terms of clear value for money or in terms of up-to-date technology and innovation, or, preferably, a combination of the two. Where those criteria are delivered, the PFI will have achieved its desirable objective and should be supported and endorsed. Those are the criteria that we should pursue.
  The Select Committee, of which I, too, am a member, has rightly said that it agrees with that. It believes that the PFI is innovative and that there are benefits to be accrued from it, but it has some concerns and reservations which need to be addressed. Some of us are not entirely convinced that the Government's reply is, in some cases, satisfactory, and, in one particular case, begins to address the point.
  One of the Committee's particular concerns was that the PFI was being driven by the financial constraints of the Treasury and the need to substitute committed public expenditure with PFI projects, and that that was what was driving it. As a consequence, projects might go ahead, or be forced to go ahead, for those reasons only, so not meeting the two criteria that I set out as desirable at the beginning. The Committee had some evidence that that was the case.
  It was a matter of concern to me that, in the first evidence that we took from Treasury officials only a few months ago, it was acknowledged that the criteria or the monitoring process on which the PFI was to be judged had not been worked out. That gave me the impression that it was being driven by financial considerations rather than innovation and value for money.
  I was disappointed, as was the Committee, which is why it instigated the inquiry, that the claims for the PFI, in terms of the number of projects and the value that could be delivered, were not being fulfilled, and clear problems were arising which had not been anticipated. Despite the fact that those problems were obviously arising, which is why the Treasury could not prove the schemes at the rate that the Government had forecast, the Government did not revise their forecast, or if they did they revised it upwards. Basically, 100 per cent. of the Government's new committed expenditure is to be found from a PFI scheme that has not been fully tested, evaluated or proved capable of delivering that volume.

  291
  I want to mention one or two projects of particular concern to me. Either we will stumble into projects which will subsequently prove to be bad value for money or, worse, may even lead to the project failing and public money being written off, or we will not achieve the committed public expenditure that the Government are claiming. The Government say that they want to build more hospitals and roads and, during the general election, they will tell everyone that that is what they will do. However, they will not be able to find the money within the normal budgetary procedure, so they will pluck it all out of the air as being delivered by the PFI, despite the fact that they know that there are not enough projects and not enough companies coming together to deliver that. Therefore, the Government know that what they are saying is essentially a lie and that they are putting a forecast that they know they cannot deliver. The Select Committee has some reason to suggest that that has some substance because the Government have to date failed to deliver their forecast promises.
  We all expect the PFI to accelerate and, if they are the right kind of projects, I shall certainly welcome them, and I believe that those of our constituents who can see benefit in them will also welcome them. But let me put from my own knowledge the sort of concerns that arise which I believe are legitimate. The hon. Member for Gravesham said that projects were going ahead out of the glare of the tabloid headlines. Perhaps they are, but yesterday, in The Herald a broadsheet, there was the headline
  "A tender moment of truth",
  referring to the announcement of the successful bids relating to Stonehaven hospital in Kincardine and Deeside. The Stonehaven hospital project is a small one, but in other ways it is similar to the project that the hon. Member for Gravesham has described—with one fundamental difference. There are two outdated community hospitals in Stonehaven, and there is wide agreement that they need replacing by one up-to-date community hospital. The difference between this project and all others is that, under pressure from the Scottish Office, the health board has been required to invite bids for the whole hospital, including the provision of clinical services. It will be the first hospital in Britain where the clinical services will be operated and managed by a private concern.
  People are right to say that this marks a significant development in the national health service. For many, it marks the beginning of the end of the NHS as we have known it. The Government have said—as a matter of agreed public policy—that when a hospital is to close and a new one is to be built there will be public consultation. The local authorities, trade unions and others with an interest have asked about the procedure for consulting on the closure of the hospital. The ministerial reply was that the Government had widely consulted among local GPs and the community about what will actually go into the hospital, so they considered the matter closed. That means that they are avoiding their statutory obligation; if they go ahead in this way they may find themselves subject to judicial review.
  In effect, the public were told that they could have the hospital on the terms proposed—with the clinical services put out to tender—or they could have no hospital. No other option was given. Indeed, the health board explored a different route with one of the local health trusts, to its
  292
  satisfaction, but was overruled by the health service administration in Scotland and told to issue a competitive tender.
  The private sector faces certain problems too. There were seven bidders for the hospital, three of which have progressed to the final stage. As the PFI gathers momentum, private bidders express concern at the cost of preparing bids many of which, by definition, will be unsuccessful. Companies of all sizes have expressed a clear reluctance to prepare endless numbers of tenders that will result only in lost money.
  This is not an argument against tendering: it is an argument for recognising that unless there are enough objective and competitive tenders around, companies may not be prepared to bid, as they find that costs are so high that they have no serious prospects of getting their money back.
  We shall know in a week or two who has successfully bid for the hospital. There is a widespread suspicion that the contract will go to the local NHS trust. I do not say "suspicion" to suggest that that is not what people want—it is exactly what they want—but there is a real suspicion that the whole tendering process has been a charade, with the result that the local trust finally gets the contract that it was awarded in the first place anyway; but with the waste of a year, at considerable cost, and following a diversion of a great deal of trust management time from other possible projects. They include a community hospital at Ellon in my constituency. The trust management simply did not have the resources to deal with both processes at once. When the management says that it has had to divert all resources to winning the tender for one project, it is clear that it has had to abandon work on the other. That is not accelerating such projects; it retards them.
  The Committee has also expressed its concern about the Skye bridge PFI project, which continues to cause considerable controversy in Scotland. The people of Skye believe that they are entitled to modern transportation links, of which the bridge is one part. But they were effectively told that, as a small and remote community, they had no chance of being given as much priority as a community closer to the centre would get. That is somewhat ironic; it is precisely because Skye is so far away that its people need improved transport links. The Committee report states:
  "Our specialist adviser drew attention to the fact that the Skye Bridge received the blessing of the Highland Regional Council only after the Scottish Affairs minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, said that there was no possibility of a toll-free bridge for at least 20 years. This not only calls into question whether 'best value for money' was obtained but also highlights the concern that the decision to proceed with projects is determined by the funding mechanism rather than an evaluation of desirability."
  I contend that the same applies to Stonehaven, the decision on which will be announced shortly.
  My final example shows, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) pointed out, that local authorities in my area are not at all averse to exploring private finance initiatives when they think that they will give rise to good projects offering value for money. They are in the early stages of exploring the possibility of building a new academy—the Garioch academy—in the heart of my constituency. In preliminary discussions, private companies are being asked whether they would be interested in bidding. They are also being asked what is

  293
  in it for them, what is in it for the local authority and what is in it for the people who would use the school. The only answer so far has been that the janitors would be paid less. A school does not employ a great many janitors, so the savings will not be huge. We are looking at the possibility of dual use—giving the community a recreational and sporting interest in the academy. If the local authority can use the PFI to get the school built, I have no doubt that it will do so.
  The problem is that this will take a good deal of time and there is no guarantee that the right kind of package will ultimately be found—or that anyone will want to bid. The fact remains that we desperately need the school, but we are told by the Government that there is no chance of the money being provided for it. Nor have we been given any guidance on how to find it.
  The PFI does offer innovation potential for unlocking funds and giving added value for taxpayers, and that is commendable. Our concern, however, is that the PFI may be driven by other motives—that it may be a substitute for public spending commitments that will serve only to delay projects. That will put public money at risk; or it may convert public capital projects into expensive hire purchase agreements, costing taxpayers more in the long run. The Government have responded to the Committee by saying that they intend to monitor the PFI so as to avoid this problem. I should like the Minister to spell out how the Government intend to publish evaluations of projects so that we can see where there has been success, or a lack of it. That in turn will inform those working on PFI projects, ensuring that the good ones go ahead and preventing too much waste of time and money in the case of projects that are bound to collapse.
  If we can achieve what I have outlined, in a few years' time the PFI will be seen to have made a large additional contribution to public services in this country.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am delighted to have the chance to speak in this short debate. I want to touch on one or two matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—and on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).
  As the Minister knows, I have strongly supported the private finance initiative. I have had a number of meetings with him recently to try to help the Government's development of the PFI. I believe that using the private sector in such projects will provide the public services with better assets for the future.
  I should declare my background and my interest in this regard at the outset. For some time before coming here I was a corporate lawyer, spending some of my career in the construction sector. More recently I became the parliamentary adviser to the Building Employers Confederation.
  The construction industry, along with Her Majesty's Treasury, has played a big part in the development and the improvement of the PFI process. I shall refer to the points that the Construction Industry Employers Council—a big umbrella body—put to the Committee. The Committee's report is positive about the private finance initiative—it does not share the concerns of the
  294
  hon. Member for Attercliffe about the transfer of risk. He put forward his points in rather lurid terms, and I shall refer to them later.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister—in addition to the Government's formal reply to the Committee—will be able to give hon. Members further reassurance today. People from the construction industry and from the legal profession who submitted evidence to the Committee believe that the bidding process should be more straightforward and simple. In particular, they believe that there should be much more use of standard clauses—not just on peripheral issues, but on major issues—to cut down the amount of documentation.
  The Committee heard evidence that the Government should, in future, seek to ensure that only those projects that are genuinely viable for the private finance initiative are put out to competition and ensure that the recently issued Treasury guidance that no more than three or four bidders be invited to produce a full tender is strictly adhered to by the public sector bodies.
  I draw the attention of hon. Members to the evidence given to the Committee by Sir Christopher Bland, the then chairman of the private finance panel. He talked about the importance of improving training for those in the public sector and about the intensive training that was provided. In answer to questions from the hon. Member for Attercliffe in the evidence session, Sir Christopher made the point that there is a need to train people in the public sector so that they understand how the private sector works—this will enable PFI projects to go forward. Throughout my career—both before and since becoming a Member of Parliament—I have always believed that it is important for the public sector to understand how the private sector works.
  A single preferred tenderer must be identified as early as possible. Everyone understands that the gestation period for most private finance deals is extremely long and involves considerable expense. Bidders are generally willing to make a significant investment if they have a reasonable chance of securing the project, but as the costs escalate they will be reluctant to continue to spend if they are still in a competitive situation—all the money may go to waste.
  Those on the public sector side, the Government side, of a possible PFI project must, at the outset, take a realistic attitude to those risks that can be transferred to the private sector. Contracts that contain unacceptably onerous conditions should not be offered—perhaps, as a corporate lawyer, I am arguing for less work for lawyers. It is important that these deals do not get snarled up in vast amounts of contract documentation and negotiations.
  Wherever possible, standard contract documents should be produced for PFI projects. This was stressed in evidence to the Committee by S. J. Berwin and Co. and by Beachcroft Stanleys, two leading firms of solicitors that have extensive experience of projects such as this.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe mentioned two hospitals—and, as it happens, I know quite a bit about both of them. Both of my sons were born at Walsgrave, Coventry, and my father-in-law trained as a doctor and subsequently worked as a consultant at the Royal Hallamshire, which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am well aware of what is going on in those hospitals, and I understand some of the things that he talked about. In particular, I share his concern about hugely complex contractual documentation.

  295
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the transfer of risk and the need to try to keep things in the public sector. I refer to the unsuccessful world student games, the cost of which the hon. Gentleman—as the then leader of Sheffield city council—and his colleagues cast on to the council tax payers of Sheffield. I would have thought that he would understand that it is better if risk is transferred to the private sector and that the projects that need to be in the private sector benefit from the transfer of risk so that burdens are not cast on the taxpayer.
  I have emphasised some of the ways in which construction projects, in particular, can go forward with further help from the Government. This morning, for about an hour I met the director of a company that has been involved in PFI bids—in a totally different field, but one in which PFI projects are being considered. The one point that he emphasised was the importance of training public sector people who are involved in PFI negotiations to think like private sector people so that there can be a genuine meeting of minds. Only when that happens in every possible PFI project will we have more successes, such as the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), which he highlighted this morning.
  11.55 am
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Two months ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury addressed a conference on the private finance initiative in the health service. Apparently, without a hint of irony, he stood before the delegates and said:
  "Many of the hospital managers here today can testify that PFI has meant that their own local scheme has finally been able to get off the ground."
  There were looks of blank incomprehension around the conference hall because the PFI has delivered precious little so far in the health service—in fact, it is in trouble. The big contracts that the Secretary of State for Health keeps announcing—he has been making announcements for more than a year—are a long way from being agreed. In March, the Treasury Select Committee established that not one of the contracts for the major schemes had been signed—and they still have not been signed at the end of June.
  Special legislation was rushed into law in an attempt to facilitate the contracts, but still nothing has happened. Only a fraction of the capital projected in the Budget last November to be spent in the health service through the PFI—as has been said, it was a justification for the substantial drop in the national health service budget—has been committed.
  The major investment projects for which the NHS is crying out are in limbo. The banks and institutions, whose money is needed, are deeply unhappy with the way in which the initiative is being handled. The handful of big projects that are said to have got off the ground are still firmly on the ground.
  I hope that the optimism expressed by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) proves to be well founded. At the moment, the bankers are not putting up the money. I caution the hon. Gentleman against putting the bunting out about the success of the project before the money is in place—the banks are currently saying no.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to explain to us exactly what the problem is with the banks. I hope that he will be able to explain why none of the
  296
  major health service projects has got to the contract signing stage. What steps are the Government taking to sort out the problems?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I believe that the Opposition's tactics in trying to oppose the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill had something to do with it. The passing of the Bill only emphasises to the lenders that the security for their lending will be protected, in terms of both the capital lending and the flow of repayment.
  Mr. Timms: I understand that that is not the reason. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us more: information. I am interested to know why that is the case. At the moment, none of the projects is going forward.
  Before saying a little more about the PFI in the health service, I wish to make some general comments. The PFI is in trouble, and not only in the health service. It seems that no Sunday business section is complete these days without its PFI bad news story. Recently, The Mail on Sunday carried such a story, and there have been plenty of other such stories. The initiative is in trouble.
  We all welcome the use of private capital to improve public services, but the central problem is that the PFI is; being much too widely applied. It is being pressed into service when it is not appropriate and before the necessary procedures have been adopted. The PFI should be a way to lever in additional resources for public services, but it is being used to achieve short-term cost savings this side of the election. That is wrong. It is also depressing because, when the bills come in, the PFI will probably cost us more than procurement by the traditional route.
  I am pleased that the Government's response to the Select Committee report promises that data will be published on the long-term revenue commitments from PFI deals. That is progress, but the reason given for pressing the PFI into action is that private stewardship is more effective than public. Certainly, the cost of the finance is greater, because private borrowing costs more than public, so we have to believe that private management is more effective than public by a margin that exceeds the excess financing cost. To make sense of the Government's insistence that PFI should be used everywhere, one has to believe that private management of an asset is always more cost-effective than public management by a margin greater than the financing costs. The Government plainly believe that, but nobody offered any evidence to the Select Committee. The Government's response to the Select Committee contains assertions to that effect, but they are not substantiated. I am keen to see some evidence that would substantiate those claims, because they are at the heart of the case for the current version of the PFI.
  The Government have made the point that the PFI always contains a public sector, value-for-money comparator, but a false comparison has been made. The comparison is between a public sector solution and a different private sector solution. The latter may be the better solution, but nobody asks whether that solution would be more effectively procured with public sector finance and management. That is the real comparison that should be drawn, but it is not.
  Private finance can genuinely help when the creation of an asset generates a new, tangible stream of revenue which can be used to lever private capital into the project.

  297
  For example, the construction of a bridge, as we have heard, might bring a revenue stream in toll income and construction of a hospital may lead to revenue from car-parking charges. Those revenue streams may be used to lever an element of private sector capital into building the bridge or the hospital car park. If there is no such revenue stream, the case for private finance is much weaker. As one of the written submissions to the Select Committee suggested, there is no benefit to the economy in building a hospital with private finance rather than public if, in the end, the whole cost will be met from taxation.
  The problem is that we have lurched from one extreme to the other. Under the rules drawn up by Sir William Ryrie—who, I notice, re-emerged as a director of Barings bank, at the time of its crash, after his retirement from the Treasury—no private capital was involved at all. Under the present arrangements, private capital must be used except in what has been called the
  "relatively rare set of circumstances"
  set out in the Government's response to the Select Committee report. We need a middle course so that private finance can be used to supplement public, when appropriate.
  When the Treasury Select Committee took evidence on the use of PFI in the health service, it became clear that the initiative had run into more trouble in the health service than anywhere else. We found five major areas for concern. First, the initiative has so far had only a marginal effect on resources in the health service and capital spending has been cut in the false expectation that PFI money would replace it. Secondly, many witnesses spoke of the failure of Departments to provide clear objectives for bidders and of the excessively high cost of putting in bids that have little chance of success. Thirdly, there is clear evidence that in some cases PFI
  "has delayed rather than encouraged investment, by creating a need for testing and uncertainty over the level of public funding".
  It has also introduced huge additional bureaucracy to project initiation. Fourthly, the provision of services under a PFI contract may be liable to be dictated, not by need, but by the level of return available on a private investment lead, so leading to a health service without strategy or priorities. Finally, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between clinical and non-clinical services, but health managers have been forced to make it by the Government's express requirement that PFI should not be used for clinical operations. The omission of clinical services from the PFI is telling, because if the Government's dogma—that private sector management is always more effective—were true, clinical services should be included. They have been excluded because the Secretary of State for Health has recognised that the dogma is wrong in this case. It is wrong elsewhere, too.
  The most striking aspect of what has happened to PFI in past months is the extraordinary degree of disillusionment felt by the contracting companies about the scheme. Small companies felt excluded when the Select Committee took evidence, but one by one the big companies have now joined the attack. Mr. Martin Laing, the chairman of Laing and of the Building Employers Confederation, has said that it was frustrating how little work had emerged from the private finance initiative. In March, Mr. Laing said that the existing regime was
  298
  "farcical … leading to growing frustration among contract bidders about the appallingly slow rate of progress".
  In May, Bovis said that it would not tender for any more PFI road projects and refused to budge even when its representatives were summoned to 10 Downing street to explain. Taylor Woodrow said in May:
  "everything is slow, the bidding costs are high and we haven't had any tangible results yet. We are still to put a spade in the ground on a PFI project."
  This month, it has been revealed that W. S. Atkins is to stop bidding for PFI health care projects. With Trafalgar House, it has pulled out from the Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS trust, leaving only one bidder in the frame.
  I am disappointed by the Government's flip and superficial response to our report. It is a good report, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) summarised well earlier in the debate, and it deserves a more considered response from the Government. Without one, the bad news from the PFI will continue.
  12.6 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to apologise because I was not here to hear the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee introduce the debate, but I am sure that he did so with his normal distinction and aplomb.
  Everybody on the Treasury Select Committee, regardless of party, welcomes the use of private sector finance for public sector projects in principle, but we wish to flag up the problems. I shall deal with three issues this morning: first, whether PFI represents additional money or is simply a substitute for public expenditure; secondly, whether PFI is suitable for the full range of public sector projects; and, thirdly, the challenge PFI poses for the public's ability to monitor public finances and expenditure.
  On the first point, the Select Committee has noticed conflicting positions from Ministers. In his 1994 Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
  "The growing importance of private finance has helped us to find significant savings for the taxpayer in the transport programme."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1085.]
  But the Chief Secretary, in his evidence to the Select Committee, said:
  "Private finance is genuinely additional."
  Which is correct? Is PFI about savings for the taxpayer or is it about additional money?
  My second point is whether PFI is suitable for the full range of public sector projects. When the Select Committee began its inquiry, the standing instructions from the Treasury were that every public sector project had to be examined for its suitability for PFI. People in the public sector complained about that and the bidders and contractors said those rules were ridiculous because time was wasted considering unsuitable projects. It is clear from the Select Committee's inquiries that PFI is probably most suited to projects with a natural revenue stream and it is least suited to publicly sensitive projects such as the health service.
  We want private sector money to be used to solve existing public sector infrastructure problems. Decisions about the way in which we spend money and what is built

  299
  must not be distorted by the PFI. The House of Commons must take decisions about our public sector infrastructure priorities and then look to the PFI—the PFI should not drive our public sector building and infrastructure programme.
  It is clear to the Committee that future PFI commitments are being entered into across a range of Ministries without any central monitoring. In a sense, PFI embraces the "buy today, pay later" approach—it is a form of hire purchase. We are concerned about public finances and we believe that the Government are not paying enough attention to central monitoring and to keeping control of the taxpayers' long-term financial commitments.
  The Committee members support PFI in principle, but we believe that its applicability is much narrower than the Government claim. In fact, the PFI's applicability is probably restricted to those areas that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—who introduced the forerunner of the PFI—set out in his original ground-breaking speeches on the subject.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and the members of the Treasury Select Committee on a very good report about an issue of enormous importance. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the Chairman explained the report with his usual distinction and aplomb.
  The report contains many forceful criticisms of the private finance initiative that the Government must address. The Chairman set out the main concerns succinctly: additionality or substitution, the transfer of risk, accountability, the bidding process, value for money and public expenditure control. The Committee decided to undertake the inquiry after I ceased to be a member of it. However, I was a member of it for 18 months, and in our report on the November 1994 Budget we noted that the PFI had failed to attract significant private interest. We expressed concern about whether it was supposed to provide substitute or additional funding.
  In the present report, Committee members—apparently without controversy—say:
  "We continue to see PFI as an imaginative and very laudable initiative to attract private capital into areas into which it has not before previously been drawn."
  Labour shares the Committee's welcome for the PFI in principle, as did the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, that principle enjoys broad support. However, we share some of the Committee's concerns about the way in which PFI is operating and we agree that a number of important issues must be resolved.
  Before I respond directly to the report, I shall set out Labour's general view about public-private partnerships and the PFI. In politics, new ideas tend to meet with the same pattern of response: at first they are dismissed, then they are embraced with a zealotry that is out of all proportion to their worth and then they settle down to the recognition that they are much less valuable than the zealots thought but, none the less, are of considerable worth.
  300
  In the 1980s, the old Ryrie rules introduced phase 1. They restricted the ability to apply PFI and the whole idea was greeted with suspicion. The Government have now entered phase 2, with the Financial Secretary perhaps the zealot incarnate of PFI—a description that I suspect he would not deny. He has abandoned the reality of public finance and believes that the PFI is the answer to all the Tories' financial problems.
  It is partly ideology and partly desperation that drives the Treasury to reduce public spending. It thinks that the PFI is an all-purpose Tory life raft for public capital spending. When the Government sink, the Financial Secretary will realise that he was wrong. As befits the party of the future, Labour has already reached phase 3, but we appreciate that the PFI is not the answer for all public capital projects. It is an alternative, useful and often attractive source of finance in particular circumstances. It should be used where appropriate, but it cannot be a substitute for public spending on all capital projects.
  We support the principle of joint public and private sector investment; indeed, many Labour-controlled local authorities have pioneered such investment. Joint provision will become increasingly common in the future. It will be an important part of our policy and the driving forward of such ideas will be a key aim of a Labour Treasury. A partnership between the public and private sectors can enhance public provision by introducing new sources of finance and expertise. However, there are key distinctions between the way in which the Labour party and the Conservatives approach PFI.
  The Conservatives seem to be dawdling in the same old ideological rut—the mindset that private is always best. Labour has set aside the old ideological battle lines between the private and public sectors. We recognise that those sectors can complement each other: there are things that the private sector does best and areas where public sector finance is more appropriate. In some cases, a combination of public and private sector provision is necessary. Joint provision is often appropriate in areas such as savings provision, training and investment in infrastructure.
  Labour will adopt a practical approach to those issues. Our primary concern is to ensure that the public get the best possible provision of services and the best value for money. In many ways, we are moving beyond the old concept of the mixed economy. Public and private provision are increasingly interlinked. Under the classic mixed economy, a certain percentage of ownership was in public hands while another percentage was in private hands. We are developing beyond that point. In some cases, it is possible to harness the best of both worlds—the two sectors are being fused.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No, I am afraid that I am short of time.
  Public-private partnerships can play a key role in that context. For years, Britain has suffered from under-investment in its economic and social infrastructure. The poor physical condition of the nation's public buildings, transport facilities and communications bear testimony to the need for investment. Jobs need to be done and there are people ready to do them. Businesses are keen to have new opportunities to ensure that the work will be completed and the profits gained. The Government

  301
  must set out their clear priorities and establish a framework within which that investment can be made. Only the Government can put that framework in place and set strategic priorities. The public and private sectors could work together in that way, but unfortunately the Government are failing in that task.
  Labour shares the concerns expressed by the Treasury Select Committee about the Government's general approach to the PFI. We are worried that the Government's projections regarding the value of PFI projects may be over-optimistic. The Government predict that the PFI will increase from £600 million in 1995–96 to £1.9 billion in 1996–97 and to £2.6 billion in 1997–98. We also agree with the Committee—and with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who set out his concerns in an excellent speech this morning—that the Government are treating the PFI as primarily substitute funding. In paragraph 7 of its report, the Committee states:
  "It is enabling the Government to cut capital budgets in future plans."
  That may be valid in some circumstances, but it was hoped that the PFI would provide private capital that could be added to public money to widen and improve public sector services. In paragraph 6, the Committee correctly says:
  "If there is a serious shortfall in the PFI projections it will be difficult to provide money from public capital budgets to fill the gap."
  It remains to be seen whether the Government are being over-optimistic and whether there will be serious shortfalls. If that occurs, the Committee's warning will have been timely and it will serve as a useful reference point for assessing the Government's performance on PFI.
  The Government's attitude to the PFI has been criticised by Adair Turner, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said:
  "The pressure to achieve public expenditure cuts is ferocious, the capital expenditure budget looks an attractive target and the PFI is seen as a justification for major cuts."
  Last September, the Building Employers Confederation claimed in its Budget submission that the Government's decision not to approve capital projects until private finance options had been explored had led to a
  "serious hiatus in the placing of public sector construction orders."
  Those concerns have been reinforced in a number of sectors. The Government's "buy now, pay later" approach to the PFI raises serious concerns for Parliament. The Treasury Select Committee report presents an alarming array of evidence regarding the Government's cavalier approach to the PFI.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: But you are in favour of it.
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes, we are in favour of the principle, but we dispute the Government's cavalier approach. That is a serious problem. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order. There is an unattractive chorus emanating from the Back Benches. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to keep quiet.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  302
  To some extent, the Treasury's response to the Select Committee must be welcomed, because it acknowledged the nature of the problem of monitoring and promised that it would seek to monitor commitments to
  "safeguard against an imprudent build up of liabilities in the future which might impair a future government's ability to change spending priorities, reduce spending in a given area or to deliver the relevant services in another way".
  Yes, and about time, too. The Treasury should have realised that an awful long time ago. However, it then goes on to say:
  "The precise details of the control regime would be individually negotiated between departments and the Treasury".
  It is unclear precisely what that means. It seems that the Treasury has changed its hands-off approach evidenced in earlier documents to the Committee, but it does not appear that it has any effective controls in place to ensure that the PFI is delivered within reasonable public expenditure controls. That is clearly inadequate, and the Financial Secretary's apparent response to the Committee—"It is better to travel in hope than not to travel at all"—borders on a bizarre approach to public finances.
  When the Committee's report considered value for money, the Treasury's position became a matter of even greater concern. Labour will adopt an entirely different approach. We believe that it is the Government's job to set out a policy framework, against which companies can be expected to plan. Having determined our priorities, the private sector can then make its proposals. The models that we shall adopt will be flexible and appropriate to the circumstances.
  We propose to set up a unit to ensure that projects get off the ground. We shall ensure that public bodies are equipped to deal with the projects. The primary duty of Government is to ensure that services are delivered for the benefit of the public. That means using the expertise and innovation that is available to this country, while keeping a rigorous control over the cost of the liabilities being entered into. Control of public spending is essential if we are to maintain economic stability.
  This partnership has tremendous potential. The tragedy of it is that the Government see the PFI as an opportunity to privatise policy making and decision taking and have abdicated their responsibility. That is one of the reasons why the PFI is in its current state. Labour has a new approach, which I believe will increasingly command the support and confidence of the public and the private sectors.
  12.21 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): In the few minutes remaining, I shall do my best to reply to the debate, which was so ably opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), who, in balanced, careful and exacting terms, dealt with the Committee's extremely good report and the Government's response to it.
  Time may prevent me from replying in detail to every comment that was made by Opposition Members, but one thing that came shining through was the fundamental discomfort of many Opposition Members—on both the Front Bench and the Back Benches—about what the private sector can deliver; a fundamental distrust lingered beneath their comments.
  The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, in effect, "Labour will take back control. We don't really want the private sector to make progress in these particular areas."

  303
  Compare and contrast that entirely negative view with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who eloquently pointed out the benefits of the PFI in rapidly making much needed health improvements for his constituents. My hon. Friend asked whether we could pour oil on the wheels that do the deals. The private finance panel executive plays a major part in helping these projects to come to fruition. I can assure him that I shall draw his remarks to its attention and ask it, where appropriate, to give every assistance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove mentioned additionality, as did other hon. Members. He will recall that I gave evidence to the Committee. When the Government decide the amount that they will spend, the services that they purchase under the PFI fall within that financial envelope, so projects that are not straightforwardly financed from public moneys must by definition be additional.
  More important, when one compares and contrasts the benefits from private finance—value for money and risk transfer, and one has only to look at projects such as the British Library and the Limehouse link, referred to in our reply to the Select Committee's report, to realise the benefit of those—one sees that a great deal of public money was wasted in the past because there was no proper procurement and because risk factors had not been properly considered. Under the PFI, those risks are now borne by the private sector, not the public purse, so each pound that the public sector spends can be made to work harder to provide high-quality public services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove mentioned control and monitoring, as did other hon. Members. I have never made a secret of the fact that, with an initiative that is only three years old, there will always be much to learn and that there will be an opportunity for constructive criticism and a chance to refine and improve. I very much welcome what the Select Committee said as a contribution to that debate.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the bidding process. We have, subsequent to the Select Committee's report, published a new set of procurement guidelines, which have been widely welcomed by many of the people who were quoted by Opposition Members as being critical or in some way against aspects of the PFI. [Interruption.] It is important that we continue to refine the bidding process to take cost out and continue our work on, for example, producing standard clauses for contracts, all of which will help to deal with some of the reasons why private sector companies have reprioritised.
  Some of the companies have said that they already have so many bids on their plate that they will not make any more because their resources or their manpower are limited. It is not, though—to answer the criticism of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—because they have issued a vote of no confidence in the PFI. Far from it. When I saw the number of companies that attended the roadshows that I visited around the country; the number of companies that continue to bid for projects— [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard that I answered her a moment ago. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) would refrain from making what is becoming a running commentary.
  Mr. Jack: Those companies maintain their interest in the PFI and certainly in the health service. To date, 34 PFI contracts, worth £82 million, have already been signed. Six major hospital schemes, with a capital value of some £386 million, have been improved in the past few months. Our new private finance panel chairman, Alastair Ross Goobey, and I share one thing in common: our top priority is to ensure that those deals are signed. They are complex deals. They are difficult to execute, and they are not helped by the noises from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who runs around saying, "This is all about privatising the health service," when nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Betts indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He obviously has not read the relevant section of "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit", which shows quite clearly how the private sector's expertise in the provision of certain medical services under the direction of the NHS can be a tremendous boon and a blessing to patients.
  I listened with incredulity to the outburst of the British Medical Association. The PFI attracts resources that improve the delivery of health care. All we hear from the Opposition are noises questioning whether this is a good idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham clearly and positively proved that the way forward is to back the PFI. It brings new, innovative solutions, better value for money and, most important, NHS health care delivered under the current terms of the NHS in better facilities for patients. Surely that is something on which we can all agree.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who, sadly, is not in his place but who kindly wrote to me, made a thoughtful and helpful speech. He drew our attention to two fundamentals of the PFI: perceptible added value and the use of up-to-date technology and innovation. That is precisely how we achieve the better value for money that lies at the heart of the private finance initiative.
  Interestingly, perhaps the most knocking copy came from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who led a council into near-financial disaster over the arrangements for the Sheffield games. He smiles, but he illustrates as no one else can how the lack of any business acumen among Opposition Members undermines their understanding of what the PFI is all about.
  The Government will monitor carefully the forward commitments entered into by Departments, but that is part of a controlled whole. At least this Government have a grip on public expenditure, unlike the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who gave us no figures. That is typical of Labour's menu without prices. Whatever it has to say, on a menu without prices its diet will be utterly unaffordable.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next topic.

  Dance and Drama Students
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: There are some things that this country is quite simply best at—and I am not just referring to football. Theatre is one of those things. Britain can be justifiably proud of its theatrical heritage. We have enormous artistic talent, but the worldwide reputation of British dance and drama has been built on the hard work, dedication and training that are required for success in those demanding professions. Some 93 per cent. of our dancers and 86 per cent. of our actors and actresses were trained professionally, and most of our finest performers began their careers at the small number of independent dance and drama schools that still promote professional standards and excellence in the performing arts.
  Together, those independent schools provide a system of training which, as Sir Anthony Hopkins said—a man, incidentally, whose personal contribution to the training of our young people is generous in the extreme—
  "is the envy of other countries; we produce actors who are respected and revered around the world and who can be fine ambassadors for the nation."
  Those fine actors and dancers enhance our cultural lives, but they also play a major part in attracting visitors to our country. London's theatre life is a magnet for tourists from overseas, and from elsewhere in the country. It is a huge factor in the economy of London and the nation. Around Britain, regional companies rely on, and themselves develop, the pool of well-trained actors and dancers produced by our specialist stage schools. From Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's latest musical to the revivals of classic dramas, and from the Royal Ballet to the latest contemporary dance, one strand runs: dependence on British performing talent.
  Thanks to the national lottery, we are investing in the physical infrastructure of the arts on a massive scale, but we are ignoring human capital in a cavalier way. We also risk destroying the long-term training infrastructure of fine schools that may be forced to close or make invidious choices—schools such as the Birmingham school of speech and drama, the central school of ballet and the Doreen Bird college of performing arts, of which we have every right to be proud.
  Young talent must be trained in dance and drama schools, not just at higher education institutions and universities. After years of warning, we are now at the very edge of the precipice. Very soon—apart from the lucky few who live in the right place, or whose parents are prepared to make enormous sacrifices to ensure that they are trained: some constituents of mine have sold their home to fund their daughter's dance training—only the rich and the foreigner will be able to be trained at British schools of performing arts.
  Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber said 18 months ago—his office tells me that he stands by these remarks—
  "This country is famous for its talent in this field. The present policy could lead to a serious gap in training and ability, which, if allowed to continue, will be filled by others."
  He means, of course, foreigners in his own musicals.
  Vocational dance and drama training in the United Kingdom takes place at independent institutions that receive no funds from central Government. As a result, they must charge full economic fees for the courses they offer—typically, some £7,500 a year for dance, with maintenance costs on top of that.
  306
  With no central funding, and now no eligibility for mandatory awards, students must rely on discretionary awards from their local education authorities; but increasing numbers of LEAs are saying that they cannot afford to fund students. Some feel that they can use such large sums better by sharing them among more students, while others have a philosophical dislike of private education, which is how they wrongly view the independent stage schools. Others—such as Hereford and Worcester county council in my constituency—have given up discretionary grants altogether. The total cost of dance and drama training in those institutions is a little over £20 million a year, and only a small proportion of that is now being met by the LEAs.
  There have been two recent surveys, one of which received rather more publicity than the other. I had conducted my own survey before I realised that the Gulbenkian Foundation, along with a number of other charities and trusts, had commissioned one. I am glad to say that the two surveys produced broadly the same outcome. The Gulbenkian Foundation survey, published on 4 June, said:
  "The situation is at least as bad as had been feared. Twenty-eight per cent. of all LEAs have a declared policy of giving no support to students of dance and drama."
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not a particularly tragic example that of Kent county council, which scrapped discretionary grants when Labour and the Liberal Democrats took control? A young girl living close to my constituency—a very talented dancer—was turned down for such a grant. What is particularly wicked is that, if and when parents appeal, the appeal is conceded, but the parents do not know that in advance. Parents who do not appeal have therefore lost the opportunity. Moreover, the Lib-Lab county council will not tell Members of Parliament about constituents whose applications have been refused, and whom we could inform of the possibilities of success at appeal.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend points the finger in the right direction. I intend to return to that subject later.
  The Gulbenkian Foundation continued:
  "Between 1994–5 and 1995–6, the two years covered by this study, the number of students receiving such awards fell by 12 per cent. Of those LEAs which did make awards in this field, less than half met the full cost of college fees and of maintenance at the standard (i.e. mandatory award) level. There is evidence that potential students are being discouraged from applying for support both because they perceive that they have little chance of success, and because of their concern that if they are successful they themselves will have to bear the cost of a substantial part of their fees."
  Some believe that we can turn the clock back and encourage local education authorities such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) to start making awards again, and increase the number of awards. I think that those hopes are ill founded.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I apologise for arriving a few seconds late. My hon. Friend has made some very good points, with which I entirely agree. Can he confirm the experience of students in my constituency, that even the charities that have been able to help out in the past are now running out of money?
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that organisations such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts are making awards, but they cannot be expected to make good the total shortfall.

  307
  Vocational performing arts training is pretty well the only first qualification for which Government funds are now not available. Music and visual arts students receive mandatory awards, as do academic dance and drama students who go on to teach, and students of Anglo-Saxon and sociology. For my party, which believes in equality of opportunity, the issue cries out to be addressed. The human results are very worrying.
  There is, for instance, the misery of those who cannot fulfil their talents. I find interviews on the subject in my constituency heartbreaking. It is almost impossible to look at the girls involved—the students in my constituency tend to be girls, because it contains a fine dance school, the Harlequin stage school in Worcester, run by the principal, Paula Dymock. That school has an extraordinary ability to bring on the inherent talents of girls, but we know that, because they live in Hereford and Worcester, they will not be able to go on to the colleges that they wish to attend in order to develop their talents. I cannot accept that such talents should be discarded.
  There is another problem. Some LEAs make partial funding available to students, but that too is a kind of trap, although it is better than nothing. Students try to make up the financial shortfall by working part time while they are on their courses, which means that they cannot deal with the physical requirements of those demanding courses, especially dance courses. There is abundant evidence of increased injuries to dance students through lapses in concentration and simple physical and psychological pressure. As a result, students withdraw from courses injured and in debt.
  Whom do I blame? I firmly blame the Labour and Liberal parties which, sadly, are in power at LEA level. They are turning their backs on the problem. They, not the Government, are to blame. The local authority for the Minister's constituency finds the money to spend—not surprising, because its budget increases in real terms each and every year. However, it will not find even modest sums for the most talented dance and drama students who want to go to college.
  Labour postures, but has nothing to offer. Labour floated an inadequate solution in 1994, but it seems to have sunk without trace. That party's document, "Lifelong Learning", which was published last month, alludes to the problem tangentially. Its introduction states:
  "whole categories of students have no mandatory entitlements".
  I searched in vain for any explanation of how that would be overcome. Even the inadequate solution that Labour was canvassing of a small number of accredited schools, not courses—many of which are already in the higher education sector—seems to have been dropped. No doubt Labour's shadow Arts Minister is afraid of the shadow Chancellor. So much for new Labour's commitment to the arts.
  We must first make sure that schools and courses are up to the mark, then provide direct public funding as for any other career or qualification. There must be accreditation, to make sure that schools deserve the public money that I want them to receive. Drama schools were the first to be accredited, followed by the Council for Dance Education and Training—whose procedures are exceptionally stringent and effective.
  The drama sector admits that dance education is in the lead in that respect. The National Council for Drama Education plans to catch up, using new accreditation
  308
  procedures. The CDET accredits courses, not institutions, and aims at raising standards throughout the country. Its system was devised after extensive consultation with Ofsted and experts. Visits are made by trained inspectors, including former members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.
  That serious exercise began a year ago, and seems likely to result in a significant reduction in the number of accredited dance courses, which will in turn lower the number of students eligible for discretionary awards by two thirds. Dance schools have gone through a tough process, and deserve credit for their approach. My hon. Friend the Minister can be confident that the courses remaining will deserve the taxpayers' money. The accreditation procedures in place or being developed will have to be approved by the Department with a rubber stamp, but we do not need the new bureaucracy proposed by Labour.
  Public funding would end the system whereby LEAs make discretionary awards. They do not want that discretion, but are anxious to surrender it. Some voices in the Government say that we must not deny any discretion to LEAs or local authorities. In fact, that discretion creates more problems than it is worth.
  It is easier for the Government to solve the problem in drama training, because students are typically post-A-level, and it is effectively a higher education sector. Drama students could go straight for mandatory grants, with the schools funded centrally. Dance education is more complicated, because its pupils normally begin intensive vocational courses at a much earlier age, to develop muscle memory and so on, before taking their A-levels.
  The Government could adopt a range of possible solutions—I am not concerned which, provided that the outcome will be mandatory awards for dance students. The Government could expand the music and ballet scheme, make direct grants, develop a permanent role for the Arts Council or—my personal preference—establish an independent funding council for dance education. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Prime Minister, he made music students eligible for mandatory awards. I hope that the present Government will do the same for other students.
  The Government are already doing a lot that is right. I welcome the expansion of the music and ballet scheme. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced an extension of the specialist schools programme to sport and the arts, including the performing arts. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has said that lottery money can be used to develop young talent. However, the fundamental injustice remains. I want the Government to develop a sticking plaster solution—a short-term remedy—while they work out the longer-term answer.
  I do not believe that the Arts Council represents the long-term solution. Given the huge contribution to our lives that the performing arts make, they should be treated like any other academic or vocational qualification and be funded by the same sort of institutions—although, in the short term, the Arts Council must be involved.
  On 1 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage issued new guidance on lottery funds that instructs the Arts Council to take into account

  309
  the desirability of developing talents, skills and creative abilities—particularly among young people—while having regard, rightly, to the importance of not entering into long-term commitments or creating long-term expectations that might limit the money available for distribution in future. The mechanism exists for a stop-gap solution while my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials develop a longer-term answer.
  The Arts Council for England has established a small group led by Clive Priestley to analyse the current situation. It will report next month to the Government and its recommendations will be passed to Sir Ron Dealing. I am pinning my hopes on Sir Ron's higher education review, which is due in the middle of 1997. I hope that the Minister can confirm that dance, with its relatively young entry age, and drama could fall within Sir Ron's terms of reference. The report will not be implemented immediately for a year or two after publication, so for three years, dance and drama students will be in jeopardy. There is a risk of throwing away a whole generation of talent and of destroying the skills base of schools.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has a deep sense of justice and fair play, and I am sure that he will demonstrate those qualities in his reply. I hope that he will offer a short-term solution and guarantee that the longer-term remedy will lie in Sir Ron Dealing's remit. Who knows how many superstars of the future will be lost if we do not act? Who knows how many we have already lost? The chances are that many have been lost, and we must not lose any more. We must not let down the Darcy Bussells, Sarah Brightmans and Sir Anthony Hopkinses of the future.
  12.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) painted a gloomy picture of the situation facing students who are seeking discretionary awards in dance and drama from local education authorities. He mentioned the research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, which underlies much of his analysis, and the efforts of the Gulbenkian Foundation to get at the facts.
  I have no doubt that the findings of those two bodies and of my hon. Friend, which are based on a survey of LEAs, are broadly accurate. They reflect points made to the Department about LEA policies for some time, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). There has been a significant decline in the number and level of LEA discretionary awards in the past two years, and it is clear that dance and drama students have been particularly affected.
  I take issue with my hon. Friend's suggestion that dance and drama students are uniquely disadvantaged. I am aware from representations by other hon. Friends and interested parties that osteopaths, chiropractors, horticulturists and certain private agriculturists feel similarly disadvantaged, which proves that it would not necessarily be inexpensive to correct the problems identified by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: One of my constituents will, after much competition, be attending a London
  310
  drama school. He does not want to enter one of the universities offering drama courses, because they are theoretical, and he wants to be an actor. Is not the problem that a mandatory grant would be available for theoretical university drama courses but not for the alternative?
  Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman makes a clear point that goes to the heart of the debate—that everybody has to make a judgment as to the relative value to society and the individual of different kinds of vocational and other education and training, and the priorities that we award them. That consideration underpins my hon. Friend's case.
  I am aware of the views of students, teachers and others directly involved, and acknowledge the level of anxiety that has been expressed.
  Interestingly, in discretionary awards—which are so key to what we are considering—as a whole, the numbers rose between 1990–91 and 1993–94. Indeed, the number of awards even in 1994–95, when the sharp decline had started, was still some 66 per cent. higher than the number of further education awards a decade earlier. Spending on further education discretionary awards was almost 60 per cent. higher in real terms than it was a decade before. Again, that shows that we are talking about the ordering of priorities within an overall amount of expenditure, those priorities being determined largely by LEAs. Therefore, the position overall can conceal a much worse situation in individual subject areas. That is what we are talking about today.
  It is important—and it is another legitimate area of judgment and debate—that we acknowledge, as my hon. Friend did, that we are talking about discretionary awards, which are at the discretion of local and accountable LEAs. They have to consider applications on their merits, across the whole range of subject matters. The number and level of grants is a matter for those elected LEAs, taking account of their financial situation and their views on and judgment about local priorities.
  That is the way the system works. Unless and until there is a significant policy decision by this or any other Government to alter that, that is the context within which we must all operate. LEAs must listen to local views. It is up to everyone concerned—not least my hon. Friends in the Chamber today, individual students, their families and others—to influence LEAs to alter their judgments and priorities if people believe that there is something wrong with them. That is the way to do it.
  However, in doing that, a number of questions arise. We must acknowledge that all public bodies, central and local government are operating with tight resources, which means that the focus and the priorities must be ever sharper. It involves ever more difficult decisions being made.
  Those who seek additional money, as my hon. Friend has done openly today, ultimately have to say how they would alter the priorities to find that additional money. They also need to show that the number of places available currently, or if enhanced, is justified. They need to ensure that provision is not fragmented. It is essential that they show that the training is of an acceptable standard. In that respect, I am encouraged by the recent accreditation work of the Council for Dance Education and Training, to which my hon. Friend referred. They always need to show that costs are realistic. That is an

  311
  important point, especially as dance and drama courses are expensive. All those points must be addressed; indeed, many are being addressed already.
  The difference in emphasis between local authorities highlights my point. There is an enormous disparity between what different LEAs do. They have a voluntary code of practice, which we welcome. However, there is an issue about what some people call black hole provision. We shall continue to reflect further on the implications of that and on what changes may be necessary.
  I am aware that, in Scotland, responsibility for discretionary awards has been transferred to individual institutions from local government—something akin to my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are continuing to discuss the matter with our counterparts at the relevant Departments. The truth, as my hon. Friend recognised, is that, under the current system and current legislation, there is no scope for the Government to intervene. We cannot substitute our view for that of the LEAs.
  Another suggestion has been to ring-fence funding for discretionary awards. LEAs have to take decisions based on their full understanding of the position and the resources available to them. We should not constrain that freedom, as that would involve a major departure in the relationship between central and local government—and, indeed, the role we envisage for local government. Although many people may be tempted to seek such a change, it is more for the medium or longer term. We should pause before going down that route.
  My hon. Friend suggested that mandatory awards should be extended to dance and drama students. That is a solution, but perhaps for the medium term rather than for the immediate or short term. It would involve a change in both principle and practice in the approach taken up till now. It would mean either an increase in overall public expenditure or a reordering of priorities within the existing provision.
  That leads us to the point made by my hon. Friend about the committee of inquiry into higher education, and the input that the Arts Council intends to make. It is legitimate to consider whether the very wide terms of reference given to Sir Ron Dearing and his committee could encompass the matter that we are debating today— if only because, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, certain elements of the provision are already covered by higher education. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask the committee to consider whether that should be broadened or changed in concept or in delivery.
  I do not want to pre-empt any of that. So far, we have taken the view that the current system of mandatory awards and loans is intended and designed for full-time undergraduates. It has, until now, been thought to be unsuited to the wide variety of vocational courses and the needs of their students. All that is legitimate territory for representations to Sir Ron Dealing and his committee. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to look at all these questions in the light of the changed circumstances since the Robbins review 30 or more years ago.
  I want to say a few words about the music and ballet scheme, to which my hon. Friend referred. It was designed to support school-age children of outstanding potential to train for a career in dance and music. At present, the scheme is limited to the Royal Ballet school and four independent specialist music schools. They were selected to participate in the scheme because they are both
  312
  pre-eminent in their specialist field, and offer high standards of teaching and learning across a broad and balanced curriculum, including a good range of A-levels.
  We are expanding the MBS from September this year, by allocating further aided places to existing schools and by bringing in two new schools—the arts educational school, Tring, Hertfordshire and the Elmhurst ballet school, Camberley, Surrey—both of which will offer ballet places.
  The scheme is means-tested. Parental income assessments are identical to the arrangements under the Government's assisted places scheme at independent schools, although the contribution scale is more generous under the MBS, to reflect the fact that it covers boarding costs and the best specialist music and dance tuition available. It is possible that some colleges might be candidates for incorporation as further education institutions, but the criteria are deliberately strict, and I would not wish to raise hopes unnecessarily high.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the Arts Council. Lottery proceeds may be a possible solution to some of the problems we are debating. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced on 1 April a new direction on the distribution of lottery proceeds. That requires the Arts Council to take account of the need to develop the skills, talents and creative abilities of young people.
  The council has not yet published details about how it intends to implement the direction. I understand that, before the details are finalised, there will be an opportunity to comment. That is another opportunity in the short term to try to influence the way in which things are moving in that area.
  Any suggestion that we should require the Arts Council to target lottery proceeds on dance and drama students should be treated with some caution. This House agreed that the distribution of lottery funds should be carried out at arm's length from Government, albeit in a framework set by Ministers from time to time. The House also decided that the decisions on allocating funds should be taken by the distributing bodies.
  These matters are rightly for the Arts Council. However, as my hon. Friend mentioned, it has been decided to establish a group chaired by Mr. Clive Priestley to look into the problems of dance and drama students. I understand that the remit of that group includes the possibility of using lottery money for that and related purposes. That is another avenue of approach open to those who share my hon. Friend's anxieties through which they can try to influence the course of events.
  I need no convincing that those involved with dance and drama consider that there is a need for more expenditure, as my hon. Friend has laid out, and I have no doubt about the genuineness of their enthusiasm and anxieties. As I have said, aspects of the student support system need to be looked at, and the higher education inquiry is the vehicle to enable that.
  At this stage, on the evidence provided—even in this debate—I am reluctant to contemplate the kind of increases in public expenditure that my hon. Friend suggested. We shall, however, keep an open mind, and continue to monitor the position. Opportunities to press

  313
  the case are available, and I hope that my hon. Friend and many others who I know share his view will take every one possible to—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  1 pm
  Sitting suspended.

  Osteoporosis
  On resuming—
  1.30 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am pleased to have this opportunity, 10 years after the launch of the National Osteoporosis Society and two days after the first World Osteoporosis Day, to tell the House about brittle bone disease, or osteoporosis, and how it relates to our lives.
  It is an old disease in two senses. Fossil skeletons show that Cro-Magnon woman suffered from it—if she survived being dragged off by some caveman to bear him umpteen children. Most such women would have been dead by 50, the age after which people become increasingly vulnerable to the disease. We can all look forward, if that is the right expression, not only to a ripe old age but to the risk of the disease.
  Today, the average longevity of women is 84; for men, it is 79. It is not surprising that the disease is becoming more and more common. The incidence has almost doubled in the past 30 years. In 1990, according to the World Health Organisation, 1.7 million osteoporotic hip fractures occurred in the western world. If we do nothing about it, the number is predicted to rise to 6.26 million by the year 2050. That is an awful lot of people and an awful lot of pain and cost. Osteoporosis is reckoned to cause around 200,000 fractures in Britain alone each year and it costs the national health service around £750 million to care for those people.
  Fairy tales are full of stories that feature old crones—women shrunken, bent double and hobbling along with a stick, or long in the tooth as we say. Those problems are all due to osteoporosis. The tooth problem is caused by shrinkage of the jaw. Today, we hide people in that condition in old people's homes and give them zimmer frames. It was in such homes that I first became of the aware of the extent of this crippling disease. Osteoporosis can affect all parts of the skeleton. We shrink as we get older. Two or 3 in is common, but 10 or 15 in is not unknown. Such cases involve great curvature of the spine, the head sinks into the chest, pressure is caused on the lungs, and the people afflicted often die from lung disease before the bone disease gets them.
  If the crones were young today, the National Osteoporosis Society would be there to tell them how to prevent distorted frames and save them from their suffering. It does a wonderful job with the money that it raises and it deserves as much as the Government can give it. Apart from anything else, it would be a terrific investment. About a third of our hospital beds are occupied by people being treated for osteoporotic fractures. Some never get out of their beds; they are crippled for life. We must thank the society and its campaigning for the fact that women, in particular, are much more aware of the risks that they run. However, it is still difficult to get women to do something about the problem sufficiently early. Not for nothing is it called the silent disease; it creeps up on people over the years. By the age of 60 to 70, people are at severe risk of fractures; by 70 to 80, there is a one in three chance of something serious happening to the skeleton.
  At first glance, bones look solid, but that is far from being the case. When they are young, they are hollow and the material of which they are made is full of tiny holes.

  315
  As we grow older, the holes get bigger, like in a piece Swiss cheese, and the bones become fragile. One can suddenly suffer a broken bone from a fit of coughing, lifting a grandchild or using a vacuum cleaner. One does not have to fall over to sustain a fracture in one's 60s or 70s. When such people fall over, they have a big chance of breaking their ankles, wrists or pelvic girdles. Such fractures can be lethal; 15 per cent. of women who fracture their pelvic girdles—which are not to be confused with hip joints—die of the condition, even though they are operated on. Patching up that part of the body is difficult, because the bones are naturally thin. There is a good chance that people who survive will need zimmer frames for the rest of their lives. The quality of life is greatly reduced.
  In the past, women over 50 were considered to be over the hill or on the shelf, partly because of the decline in their health. There are many things that such women can do with their talents, but good health is essential. The early treatment of osteoporosis can go a long way towards improving the chances for older women to continue to make an important contribution to our society.
  The good news is that osteoporosis is preventable and treatable. A healthy diet with lots of calcium, which means butter, cheese and milk, gives bones strength. Vitamins are important, especially vitamin D3, which is obtained from dairy products and sunlight. Exercise is important; during exercise, the muscles pull on the bones, which strengthens them. However, the most important ingredient in preventing bone loss in women is the replacement of the natural hormones, which begin to decline as women grow older.
  It is a well-known medical fact that, if hormone replacement therapy is taken by women of 50 and over for 10 years after the menopause, the risk of brittle bones is very much reduced. A study of 6,000 women in Hull between the ages of 50 and 54 showed that 37 per cent. of them were already experiencing bone loss. Most of them went on to hormone replacement therapy, and the bone loss stopped. Not all women want to take hormone replacement and the pharmaceutical industry is developing non-hormonal treatments to counter the disease.
  Baroness Cumberlege, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, has taken much interest in the subject. She is actively encouraging health authorities to provide a comprehensive service for osteoporosis sufferers. So far, 12 per cent. of health authorities have responded. The number is growing, but clearly we want to encourage them to do more. More hospitals have scanning facilities for measuring bone loss, although it is, of course, much better for people to take precautions when they are younger and not wait for the loss to begin.
  Fewer than 10 per cent. of the sufferers of osteoporosis receive adequate treatment, but if a woman's mother or other women in her close family display some of the crippling problems of old age, she should think seriously about requesting a bone scan. The more people ask for that, the more chance that facilities will be made available in Britain for women and, I might say, for men.
  Above all, professional and public education is needed. It would be, as I have said, a tremendous investment. We would be saving hundreds, possibly thousands, of millions of pounds in the future each year, because more and more
  316
  people would avoid this crippling disease which, in the past, has been taken for granted as part of the problems of old age.
  For myself, I certainly take this treatment. I am told that I have the skeleton of a 15-year-old and that my jaws and teeth are in equally good condition. Sometimes we forget that teeth are part of the skeleton and the fact that old people lose their teeth has as much to do with bone loss as it has to do with the condition of their teeth.
  I have talked a lot about osteoporosis as it affects women. It is true that most of the sufferers are women. On average, one in three women are likely to suffer a fracture as they get older. But, of course, men can suffer too. One in 12 experience bone loss during their lifetime, although the onset usually occurs much later.
  My observation is that medical problems receive much more attention when they are considered to affect men. That is certainly true for heart disease. Therefore, I have decided to ask the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), who also takes a great deal of interest in the subject, to put the case for his own sex, because then I know that our health authorities, many members of which are men, will take the problem much more seriously, and the problems of osteoporosis will become a top priority in the treatment for what is an avoidable disease.
  1.41 pm
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I only hope that my voice will last long enough to allow me to make my points.
  First, I thank the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate and for having requested it. I fully endorse all her remarks about the work done by the National Osteoporosis Society. I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 1037 in my name which was tabled on Monday to coincide with World Osteoporosis Day and which I understand has now been signed by more than 200 hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Lady is correct to say that osteoporosis is a devastating illness for women. She is right to point out that it is not exclusively a women's disease. She has said that one in 12 men can expect to experience a fracture as a result of osteoporosis at some time during their life. Recent research has suggested that the figure may be as high as one in eight. What is worrying is that the figure is increasing. Therefore, we must address the early identification and treatment of the disease.
  The hon. Lady has mentioned that about 200,000 fractures a year are caused by osteoporosis. The National Osteoporosis Society estimates that there may well be 40 premature deaths every day as a result of this crippling disease; but, as the hon. Lady has said, it causes misery not only for those affected by this disabling disease but for their families and loved ones.
  The main thing that we have to say is that prevention is possible and early diagnosis can lead to effective treatment. The hon. Lady has referred to hormone replacement therapy. She is affectionately known as the queen of HRT. My secretary has asked it to be known that, if the hon. Lady is the queen, she claims the role of princess. But it is clear that HRT has been shown to reduce the risk of osteoporosis in menopausal and post-menopausal women. However, there is a need for a wide public education programme about other ways in which the disease can be reduced in both men and women.

  317
  First, smokers are more at risk of osteoporosis than non-smokers. As the hon. Lady has said, diet is also an important factor. Exercise has certainly been shown to be effective in building up bone density. Some drugs can be effective in treating osteoporosis, but much more research needs to be carried out into prevention through non-hormonal drug programmes. Further research, monitoring and prevention will ensure that future generations of men and women, but more particularly women, can lead full lives unhindered by the pain and disability of osteoporosis.
  The hon. Lady and I ask the Government to give a higher profile and priority to osteoporosis. As the hon. Lady has said, one third of orthopaedic beds in the NHS are occupied by patients with osteoporosis, and the estimated cost to the NHS of fractures caused by osteoporosis is around £750 million a year. But that is only part of the cost. One in five people sustaining a hip fracture die within six months, and more than half cannot walk independently afterwards, many becoming highly dependent. There are then the unseen costs of care in the community and the on-going costs of drugs, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and other support services provided by the NHS and local authorities. There is also the cost to an individual in terms of the quality of life and the quality of a carer's life. The chronic pain, the disability and the possible deformity which were outlined earlier cannot be overestimated.
  Diagnostic tools should be more widely available. The facilities in the United Kingdom for measuring bone density are scarce, although I recognise that they are increasing. But in my view and that of the National Osteoporosis Society, every health authority should have a designated lead clinician with a special interest who can update other professionals on the prevention and effective management of osteoporosis.
  The primary and the secondary services must work together to provide a seamless service, and funding for osteoporosis needs to be positively and definitely included in local contracts. Action is needed at local level. A local health commission could set up an effective osteoporosis service for about £50,000, which is less than the cost of treating two weeks' hip fractures. There needs to be action by Government. Osteoporosis should be given key area status in the Government's "The Health of the Nation" programme.
  The Minister will know that Baroness Gardner and I jointly chair the all-party osteoporosis group. Informally, we have had a sympathetic and encouraging response from Baroness Cumberlege, his ministerial colleague in the other place. I hope that we shall have a formal and positive response from the Minister today, and a commitment to recognise osteoporosis in "The Health of the Nation" targets.
  1.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for initiating a debate on osteoporosis in the middle of National Osteoporosis Week. She said during her speech that her jaws and teeth were in good condition; I can assure her that the House and, in particular, the
  318
  Government have never had any doubt about that. I believe that this is the second such week—the first World Osteoporosis Day was on Monday—the main initiative for which came from the National Osteoporosis Society.
  I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the society and its achievements during the past 10 years in giving osteoporosis sufferers everywhere a voice. The NOS has also organised this week the fifth annual conference on osteoporosis and bone mineral measurement, in Bath, bringing together the leading experts in the field.
  As my hon. Friend said, the debate can only help to raise the profile of a condition which has been described as the silent epidemic. Osteoporosis is undoubtedly a major public health problem. It has been estimated to affect as many as one woman in four in the United Kingdom. Each year in this country, there are about 60,000 hip, 50,000 wrist and 40,000 vertebral fractures which are due to osteoporosis. Most of these occur in older women, but about 20 per cent. of the hip fractures occur in men. I noted the comments about that by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), the chairman of the all-party group. Almost half of all women will have experienced a fracture by the time they reach the age of 70.
  In March 1993, my colleague Julia Cumberlege—I acknowledge the tributes paid to her work—decided to look at what we were doing in the whole field of women's health, for which she has particular ministerial responsibility, and to examine the outstanding issues. She concluded that, at that time, osteoporosis was the single most important women's health issue yet to be addressed by the Department: it had not been given the attention that it deserved. She resolved to put this right by setting up the advisory group on osteoporosis, or AGO.
  The group's remit was
  "to establish what information about osteoporosis is available, what research is being conducted and what further work needs to be done, and to report to Ministers".
  AGO submitted its report in November 1994 and, having accepted its recommendations, Julia Cumberlege published it in January 1995. The AGO report was widely distributed both within and outside the NHS, and we have reprinted it three times since then—a pointer to its popularity among health professionals and the public.
  Since publication of the AGO report, progress has been made on a number of fronts in developing osteoporosis services. Two of the report's recommendations were directed at the NHS. Julia Cumberlege wrote to the chairmen of all NHS bodies about these on the day before the report was published, and has subsequently discussed them with regional chairmen.
  The first of AGO's recommendations specifically for the NHS was that health authorities should facilitate improved co-ordination and communication between the various groups of professionals and specialists—general practitioners, nurses, gynaecologists, rheumatologists, radiologists, orthopaedic surgeons and others—involved with different aspects of osteoporosis. That may sound like a statement of the obvious, but we have made it clear to NHS chairmen that we think that it is worth taking a bit further—looking at whether having a lead clinician for osteoporosis in each locality would be cost-effective and desirable. Osteoporosis should be tackled with a "shared care" approach among all sectors of the NHS.

  319
  The advisory group's second recommendation for the NHS was that bone densitometry should be made available to assist clinical decision making with certain groups of patients identified as being at high risk.
  The National Osteoporosis Society, the leading voluntary body, published in January the results of a survey it had carried out among health authorities of the services provided around the country for people with osteoporosis. My hon. Friend referred to this work. It is fair to say that the results of that survey clearly highlight the fact that the NHS has a lot of work to do before the recommendations of the advisory group can be considered to be successfully met. It is clear that some health authorities have a great deal of work to do in improving local osteoporosis services. I note the percentage of them that my hon. Friend mentioned. That said, it would be unrealistic to expect services to improve radically overnight, but there are many points that need to be improved on.
  A number of the recommendations of the advisory group on osteoporosis were directed at the centre, and a great deal of work towards implementing the recommendations has already been done. For example, a group led by the Royal College of Physicians is working on clinical guidelines for osteoporosis. I also understand that the Clinical Standards Advisory Group will take the AGO report into account in its own report on community health care for elderly people, which is expected to be submitted to the Department later this year. Osteoporosis is now also specifically referred to in "The Health of the Nation" fact sheet on accidents.
  There has been much debate about the role of bone density scans. In such debates, the findings of the "Effective Health Care Bulletin on Screening for Osteoporosis", produced by the York centre for reviews and dissemination, are often cited in defence of decisions not to increase the availability of bone scans, as recommended in the AGO report.
  The "Effective Health Care Bulletin" considers the evidence for establishing a population screening programme for osteoporosis and concludes that, on current evidence, it would not be advisable to do so. The AGO report reaches the same conclusion. However, the latter goes on to say that, once someone at high risk of developing osteoporosis has been identified—usually by the GP asking a few key questions in the surgery—there is an important role for bone density measurements to confirm the diagnosis where the patient is reluctant to agree to treatment and to monitor the treatment to encourage the patient to continue with it.
  This use of bone density measurement is not considered by the "Effective Health Care Bulletin"—which is why the AGO report recommended that it should be reviewed. AGO rightly concluded that the bulletin as it stands has misled health care purchasers into believing that there was no role for bone density measurement in local service provision. The NHS executive is in discussion with the York centre about updating this and other bulletins in the context of a new contract for further clinical effectiveness work.
  Of course, bone density scans are not the solution to osteoporosis; but I believe that their availability, in the circumstances set out in the advisory group's report, is an important element in a good local osteoporosis service.
  320
  The Department of Health has considered the contribution that nutrition can make to maintaining bone health on several occasions. In 1991, the Government published updated dietary reference values for assessing the adequacy of dietary intakes of nutrients. The nutrients generally regarded to be most important in bone health are calcium and vitamin D, but many other nutrients have been implicated, including copper, fluoride, phosphorous, vitamin C and protein. In addition, the risk of fracture in old age is related to body composition—for once it seems to help to be a little bit plump. I make no reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay in this context, of course.
  I also noted with great interest what my hon. Friend said about HRT, and I know of her other concerns in that area. Much of what she said about it made great sense.
  The report of the advisory group on osteoporosis also recommended better public and professional awareness of the condition. It also made recommendations in respect of the nursing professions; indeed, a key quotation from the section on the role of nurses said:
  "with appropriate preparation this group is in a prime position to make a significant contribution to any programme for the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis".
  Nurses can do this only if they have a full understanding of the disease and its implications. Therefore, the next logical step was to build on the existing literature by producing a comprehensive and detailed resource pack for nurses.
  I am therefore delighted that, on Monday, at the fifth annual conference on osteoporosis and bone mineral measurement in Bath, Julia Cumberlege launched just such a resource pack on osteoporosis for nurses, midwives and health visitors. I have one with me; it is an excellent document, hot off the presses, and I can recommend it to nurses and to hon. Members. The resource pack was produced jointly by the Royal College of Nursing and the National Osteoporosis Society, and my Department gave a grant of £5,000 towards its production costs.
  The resource pack takes the form of short fact sheets in an easy-to-use folder. The simplicity of its production belies the depth of the information which it contains. The subject matter is fully covered and I am sure that it will be an invaluable aid to the expansion of the nurse's role in this field. The pack is available, free of charge, to any nurse, midwife or health visitor and can be obtained from the NOS.
  I hope that I have revealed the importance that the Department of Health attaches to osteoporosis, which is also reflected in the financial support which we give to charities in this field—not only to the National Osteoporosis Society but to Women's Health Concern and the Amarant Trust, of which my hon. Friend was a founder. We shall continue to work with them and with other interested parties, with the NHS and health service professionals, to increase awareness of osteoporosis and to improve its treatment.
  It being two minutes to Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    School Admissions
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to issue guidance to grant-maintained schools on the question of admission of children permanently excluded from their previous school. [33195]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The Secretary of State has no plans to issue such guidance. However, she has stressed in a White Paper entitled "Self-Government for Schools" and in a new circular on school admissions that grant-maintained schools should have the maximum flexibility to shape their admission arrangements to reflect the wishes of local people.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept the figures for Berkshire—which I sent to the Secretary of State at the beginning of June—which show that pupils excluded from local education authority schools are not being taken on by grant-maintained schools, but that pupils excluded from grant-maintained schools are being taken on by local education authority schools? Does the Minister accept that, whatever the Government might say about having a level playing field between different types of schools, in practice their policy is that all schools are equal but some are more equal than others?
    Mr. Squire: While I have no reason to dispute the figures that the hon. Gentleman has submitted, I dispute the conclusions that he draws from them. Instead of the conspiratorial thesis that the hon. Gentleman puts forward—which reflects the anti-grant-maintained view of the hon. Gentleman and his party—a more prosaic reason is that virtually all grant-maintained schools are over-subscribed and full, and it is logical that more LEA schools accept exclusions than GM schools. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is power within legislation for an LEA to direct a GM school in specific circumstances to accept a pupil who has no other place.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about children who have been excluded from schools that they might otherwise wish to attend. I refer to children who are kept in schools, under the force of law, but who are getting absolutely nothing out of their education. Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility that such children might be able to take the money that the local education authority is wasting on their education and spend it somewhere else?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. As he knows, since April the Government have been consulting on the way in which 14 to 16-year-olds are educated and the other opportunities that are being developed. Schools should be able to find the correct way to educate children, whatever their particular talents. I am happy to look at my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Schools (Security Cameras)
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution is planned from public funds to assist schools in the provision of security cameras. [33197]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Last week we announced extra funding for security cameras in 112 schools in England under the Home Office closed circuit television challenge scheme. The Department for Education and Employment contributed £2 million to the scheme. The Government also accept in full the recommendations of the working group on school security, including the provision of new money. That will support a further range of measures in schools, including security cameras where appropriate.
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the announcement that the Secretary of State made yesterday to make a larger proportion of budgets directly available to schools. Does my hon. Friend think that there is also a case for making the funds that he announced last week directly available to individual schools? For example, schools in constituencies such as mine face problems of vandalism and security, which have to be paid for directly out of the school budget.
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of last week's announcement. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome it because school security is important. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that all the winning schools in the announcement will receive the money directly, but money for the new security measures, for which we will make provision in the annual grant guidelines, will be paid via local education authorities, not least because they are best placed to judge the relative priorities of conflicting bids in their areas.

    Teacher Training
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received regarding the reform of teacher training. [33198]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): There has been a warm welcome for my recent announcement of my intention to define a national curriculum for teacher training, beginning with the teaching of primary literacy and numeracy.
    Mrs. Lait: May I offer my thanks and those of many of my constituents for the announcements that my right hon. Friend has made? Can she assure me that the national curriculum will include the difference between "its" and "it's", "their", "there" and "they're", and the plural and the apostrophe? Can she further assure me that 12-year-olds will be able to give a better definition of a verb than "a doing word" and that they will understand what a preposition is? Can she assure me that teachers will be instructed, whatever their subject, to correct basic mistakes in grammar, always assuming that they know what it is?
    Mrs. Shephard: We have introduced a number of reforms to ensure proper teaching of the basics, but an

    323
    Office for Standards in Education survey has shown that 46 per cent. of newly qualified teachers feel ill equipped with the practical skills that they need. They and the children deserve better. I shall announce in September the details of a curriculum for teacher training, which will start with the basic literacy skills about which my hon. Friend is rightly so concerned.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: How can the country have confidence in Ministers if, after 17 long years, they are only now waking up to the question of how teachers learn to teach?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I can remind the hon. Gentleman of what his party has done in the past 17 years. It has opposed every measure that we have introduced to improve standards, including the establishment of the Teacher Training Agency, so Opposition Members cannot now claim to be interested in high standards or in measures to improve them. If the Opposition are so concerned about higher standards, why do not they start putting matters right in the nine local education authorities that they control out of the 10 with the worst GCSE results?
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teacher training must be effective and relevant when it is taught in the colleges? My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) highlighted literacy skills, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important to teach classroom skills, including discipline and how to manage a class? If teachers do not have those skills, they will not be effective however good their training is in their subjects.
    Mrs. Shephard: Clearly, every teacher must be trained, through initial teacher training and through in-service training, in whole-class teaching; to use phonics to help early reading; to engage in active instruction rather than passive supervision; and, of course and most importantly, to keep discipline.

    Deeside School
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to make provision for severely disabled children following the closure of Deeside school. [33199]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): In considering Cheshire's proposal to close Deeside school, one of the factors that my right hon. Friend took into account was the availability of places at suitable alternative schools.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that a civilised society is one that looks after those in greatest need? As he was a party to the barmy decision to close Deeside school, will he now condemn Cheshire county council, which is continuing to break the law by failing to provide full and up-to-date statements for children from that school?
    Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman believes that any local education authority is breaking the law, he should draw his allegations properly to the attention of my right hon. Friend. There are a whole range of reasons why
    324
    Cheshire LEA proposed the school's closure and my right hon. Friend took them all into account—not least the fact that the cost per pupil place at the school is almost double the cost per pupil place at the average special needs school in the same LEA area.

    Standard Assessment Tasks
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received on her policy of requiring key stage 2 SAT results to be submitted to her for publication; and if she will make a statement. [33200]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The key stage 2 tests have been a great success this year. The overwhelming majority of schools have taken the tests and sent them for marking.
    Mr. Hughes: What would the Secretary of State say to the governors, the head and the teachers of the Church of England primary school in Bermondsey, where I am the chair of governors, who met last week to consider the extremely good inspector's report that has been produced on the school, which has now been publicised, and who decided—I vacated the chair so I did not influence the decision—that sending SAT results for publication is a completely irresponsible and inaccurate method of comparing schools' performances? Will the Secretary of State consider the school's request that it not be obliged to provide that information and that it rest its case on the basis of the Office for Standards in Education report, which says it is a perfectly good school that has obtained good results in all subjects?
    Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the quality of the Ofsted report on the school where he is the chairman of governors. However, I regret the decision by any governing body to break the law and to withhold from parents and the wider community information about a school's performance to which they are entitled. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will exercise his influence in a benign way in that regard.
    Performance tables contain hard facts. Obviously, value added is also important and the hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to take forward work in that area.
    Mr. Thomason: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the publication of the figures has proved extremely popular with parents? Is it not surprising that Opposition Members should seek to ensure that that information is not freely available?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do find that surprising. I think that parents greatly value information about schools and their performance at both primary and secondary levels. It seems curious that any hon. Member would wish to deny them that information.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she has had with regard to co-operation with UNESCO. [33201]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): None.
    Mr. Robinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that Britain is making full use of its liaison arrangements with UNESCO? What steps has his Department taken to evaluate the educational benefits of rejoining?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, but I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which we could identify a value added, in educational terms, in rejoining the present form of UNESCO—particularly in comparison with the undoubted value of our membership of bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the particular form of UNESCO to which the Government object? Is it not humiliating that a party which included among its members David Eccles and Edward Boyle—who, as Education Secretaries, were great supporters of UNESCO—continues to adopt a stand-off attitude that brings shame to our country?
    Mr. Forth: No. Madam Speaker, if I were to attempt to list the defects that we still identify in UNESCO, it would try your patience and that of the House. For example, we believe that its work lacks a clear focus, there is a danger of its duplicating the activities of other organizations—not least the OECD—we wish to see further decentralisation from Paris into the field, it needs to reduce staff costs, and we have no evidence that if we were to inject £11 million per year into UNESCO we would get any value for money. I am not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's dropping historical names and I doubt that it will impress the House.

    Independent Schools
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on independent schools. [33202]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): Independent schools are beacons of choice, diversity and excellence. We want them to flourish. Through the expanding assisted places scheme, we are making opportunities at top independent schools more widely available.
    Mr. Winterton: Quality and diversity of choice are what parents demand. Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of a Government-assisted sixth form place in an independent school is, on average, less than the cost of a sixth form place in a state school when one takes into account the capital and administrative costs that are included in independent schools' fees but are not included in the standard spending assessment of local education authorities? Will my hon. Friend give me and the House an assurance that she will continue to promote the assisted places scheme and expand it so that as many children as
    326
    possible, from as wide a spectrum as possible, are able to take advantage of what independent schools can provide for this country?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and I am extremely happy to confirm to him and the House that we are committed to the assisted places scheme, which currently offers 34,000 children, more than 80 per cent. of whom come from families with incomes below the national average, an excellent education. We have announced a doubling of the scheme over time, and from September 9,700 places will be available in 355 schools. I hope that the thousands of parents of children who currently benefit from the scheme, or who may benefit from it in future, will notice the Opposition's clearly stated policy—one of their few clearly stated policies—to destroy this ladder of opportunity.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister accept that many Opposition Members view with some scepticism the Government's continued commitment to the assisted places scheme while local authorities throughout England and Wales have to reduce expenditure on local education provision because of the Government's revenue support grant settlement? Will she say whether independent schools provide a model for the future, that is, selection and fee paying for schools in the public sector that are currently subject to the document that was produced yesterday?
    Mrs. Gillan: Independent schools provide choice and diversity for parents who wish to send their children to them. I accept that the Opposition wish to destroy the scheme. I also accept that they do so on the basis of a false premise. In fact, if one tried to educate all the pupils who are currently educated under the assisted places scheme back in the state system—for example, at the cost per pupil of a Hackney Downs education package—it would cost more than the current scheme costs the Government at the moment.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme widens choice and enables those schools to have a wider social spread in their pupils? Is she surprised that the opposition to this scheme comes from a party led by an old Fettesian and whose Chief Whip also went to an independent school?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend again makes an extremely good point. It is just another example of the Labour party saying one thing and doing another.
    Mr. Jamieson: As £350 million of taxpayers' money is being spent in independent schools, can the Minister say why Ofsted has stopped inspecting them?
    Mrs. Gillan: Independent schools are currently subjected to a very rigorous regime. The Secretary of State has powers over independent schools, and the hon. Gentleman is simply pursuing a vendetta against a scheme that offers thousands of children from families who could not otherwise afford it the opportunity to get a good education in an independent school.

    Primary Schools (Staffordshire)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per pupil at primary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in 1978–79, at constant prices. [33205]
    Mrs. Gillan: Unit net institutional expenditure on primary and pre-primary pupils combined in LEA-maintained schools in Staffordshire was, at 1994–95 prices, £1,178 in 1978–79 and £1,565 in 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available.
    Sir David Knox: Although the figures show that there has been a significant increase since the Government came to power, that increase falls short of the increase that has taken place in any number of other local authorities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when expenditure for the next financial year is determined, Staffordshire will be given an opportunity to make up the ground that it has lost in recent years?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend has always been a great champion of Staffordshire's education system. No doubt he is aware that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed these matters with representatives from the county: we have had some very helpful meetings. I hope that he will bear it in mind that Staffordshire is set to benefit this year from an above-average increase in its education standard spending assessment—an increase of 5 per cent., or £17.324 million.
    Mr. Brian David Jenkins: I thank the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) for raising Staffordshire's concern about the SSA. Does the Minister agree with some figures that I have here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The Library gave me the figures this morning, and I think that they are fairly accurate. In 1976–77, the SSA for primary schools in Staffordshire was £1,894, and the SSA for secondary schools was £2,520.[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman, who has not been in the House as long as some hon. Members and should be granted a little tolerance. At Question Time, hon. Members are not allowed to read or quote.
    Mr. Skinner: Except Ministers.
    Madam Speaker: Except Ministers. It will be difficult if the hon. Gentleman is going to go through a lot of figures, but will he do his best not to quote and just give the figures? We will help him through today.
    Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather idealistically, I thought that I could put the figures on the record. I wanted to be accurate about the SSA, because accuracy is sometimes forgotten in the House.
    If I moved one of the 800-pupil secondary schools in my constituency into a much deprived area such as Hertfordshire, it would receive an extra £168,000 a year. If the school were moved into Tory Westminster, it would receive more than £600,000 a year extra to educate the
    328
    same 800 students. Can I tell my constituents, and other people in Staffordshire, that the SSA is accurate and based on a standard of educational attainment, and is not a Tory-funded fiddle?
    Mrs. Gillan: After that long question, I think that I had better send the hon. Gentleman back to the Library to do a little more research. Staffordshire's SSA is lower because the authority has falling pupil numbers, while numbers are rising nationally. It receives less for additional educational needs, for example, owing to the falling number of families in the county who are on income support. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome that.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the Staffordshire Members of Parliament who spoke to the Secretary of State last year greatly appreciate the sympathetic hearing that she gave and the action that followed, we see it as just the beginning of catching up on other areas? Is it not crucial for Staffordshire to have an even better settlement next year?
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), we had an extremely good meeting about Staffordshire, and all that is said about its education SSA will be taken into account.

    Skills Training
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve skills training for small firms. [33206]
    Mr. Paice: During the last 18 months both skills for small businesses and the skills challenge have been targeted at small businesses. Two weeks ago, we announced further measures to simplify and improve our small business support.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister should be aware that representatives of both the construction and the construction engineering industry have recently been quite scathing about the Government's inability to provide training for small businesses in those sectors. I hope that he will also know that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently said that the Government appeared to have no framework for training targeted at small businesses. Is that not disgraceful, given that the Government have lectured us for so long about the importance of small and medium enterprises? When will we hear a little less rhetoric, and see a little action to provide the training that is necessary if small enterprises are to succeed?
    Mr. Paice: I find it fascinating that the hon. Gentleman quotes the two industries that still retain statutory training boards, which I thought the Labour party always espoused. The statutory boards for the construction and engineering construction industries are responsible for designing policy. As to the future, I said in my first reply that the Government have helped thousands and thousands of small firms through the skills for small businesses support scheme. The skills challenge that we ran last year also enjoyed massive support, and the benefits will be

    329
    immediately available to the thousands of firms that were involved. The same information will be available to help other small businesses. I remind the hon. Gentleman that nearly one half of all the companies in this country that are committed to the Investors in People standard have fewer than 50 employees.
    Mr. Ainsworth indicated dissent.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but those are the facts and he should take them on board. The Government have a proud record of helping small businesses in training.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous increase in upgrading skills across the small business community in my constituency, as we know from the Small Business Bureau analysis? The total number of organisations involved in the Investors in People initiative is 22,000, of which nearly half employ fewer than 50 people.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is a champion in the House for small businesses not only in his constituency but throughout the country. He is right to emphasise the importance of the Investors in People standard, which is the most appropriate lever for promoting training in businesses of all sizes. In most cases, the problem is not funding but helping small businesses to make time available and acquire the motivation for training. The usual response from the small business man is, "I am too busy running my business." The Government's policies are aimed at addressing that situation.
    Mr. Byers: Can the Minister confirm that more than half the work force are in firms with fewer than 100 employees? Given the significance of that sector of the labour market, will the Minister explain why, under the Government's public expenditure plans, the small business budget is to be cut next year? Given also the real difficulties that small firms have in training employees, why do not the Government adopt Labour's proposals to target financial assistance on small firms, so that they can be part of the skills revolution that the country needs?
    Mr. Paice: The majority of people work for businesses with more than 50 employees, which is why our lifetime learning targets—as part of our national education and training targets—are aimed at that size of business and beyond. That is the way to connect with the large number of people working in sizeable businesses and helping the majority of employees. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government should copy Labour party policies. If he thinks that we are going to introduce compulsion, which is Labour's policy for small businesses, so that young people will be let off and sent to college—
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, in the case of 16 and 17-year-olds.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman says yes. Labour would require small firms—not encourage or persuade—under threat, to let young people go to college. That would destroy employment opportunities for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young people.

    State Schools
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what actions her Department has taken since 1988 to improve the quality of education in state schools; and what further plans she has for improvement. [33207]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The whole thrust of Government policy over the past 16 years has been to raise standards. I have recently announced plans to reform teacher training, improve discipline and promote school self-improvement. Yesterday, we published a White Paper to extend self-government for schools and to increase choice and diversity in our school system, which will also help to raise standards.
    Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend's answer outlined the action taken so far by the Government and the action that they will take when they are re-elected in a few months' time. Will she confirm that the White Paper that she announced yesterday will ensure the transfer of more than £1 billion from local education authority administration to the classroom, give parents and schools much greater choice and allow the emergence of additional technical schools?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can indeed confirm that the White Paper will extend independence for schools, freedom for grant-maintained schools and choice for parents. An additional £1.3 billion will be delegated to schools, giving them more control over what they do. I confirm that the White Paper proposes a welcome expansion in the very successful programme for specialist schools and colleges.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State agree that accurate methods of measuring performance will have to be in place before the Department for Education and Employment can claim that its measures have led to improvements in education? In that context, does she agree that standard assessment tasks would be an inappropriate measure, given the uncertainty about the definition of the various levels of SATs and the recent changes in the SATs marking system?
    Mrs. Shephard: The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has been redefining levels with schools and teacher associations. It is very important that all such matters are taken seriously—the SCAA is certainly doing so—because test marking must be entirely consistent. That is in hand, there is no problem and the work is continuing.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are now witnessing the final destruction of social engineering in education? Will she further confirm that we are about the elimination of Stalinism in local education? Finally, will she confirm that we are about maximising choice and exposing the hypocrisy of those who say one thing and do another?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly confirm that we are seeing the end of Stalinism, and very welcome that is, too. I remind my hon. Friend, although he needs no reminding, that the pathetic and backward-looking response of Opposition Members yesterday to our proposals to provide for the

    331
    aspirations and ambitions of parents and children—by increasing independence for schools and choice for parents—showed that their ideas are indeed stuck in the time warp so clearly defined by my hon. Friend.
    Ms Hodge: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when she was asked about selection procedures in secondary education at a meeting with the National Union of Teachers in Norfolk in 1994—after she had become Secretary of State—she said:
    "nothing would change while I'm in charge"?
    Yes or no?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady has been most assiduous in her researches. She might be better advised to get on with what I understand to be her allotted task of preparing Labour's policy on nursery education, which is a long time appearing. I advise her to concentrate on her day job.
    Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend's recent proposals on discipline, designed to improve the quality of state schools, were especially welcome. Are not her proposed measures to return to teachers the power to discipline unruly pupils, with or without the consent of their parents, absolutely essential and welcome?
    Mrs. Shephard: They are indeed essential, and since being elected my hon. Friend has been most assiduous in pursuing that cause. He will therefore welcome our proposals, which we shall enact if parliamentary time allows, to support teachers in the classroom.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Given the Secretary of State's newly found enthusiasm for secondary modern schools in every town, will she tell the House whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed the estimated £2 billion extra cost of the Prime Minister's pipe dreams, whether she has assessed their impact on surplus places in our schools and why she remains obsessed with structure when the country is crying out for the raising of standards in education? Are not the Government's education proposals about as much use as a chocolate fireguard?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is never short of a colourful phrase or two. I remind him that if structures increase the independence of schools and increase choice and diversity, they can contribute to the raising of standards.
    I made the position on costing absolutely clear yesterday. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends cannot have it both ways. They are either in favour or more independence for schools and more choice for parents, in which case they should support our policies, and in particular yesterday's White Paper, or they are not, in which case they should condemn those members of their Front Bench who not only support our policies, but take advantage of them for their own children.

    Schools (Selection)
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding selection in schools. [33208]
    Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend receives frequent representations about all aspects of school admissions and organisation.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that Gloucestershire never abandoned selection or grammar
    332
    schools, despite the most vigorous and determined opposition to them and the absolute determination of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to bring about their abolition? Is she further aware that the result has been highly motivated pupils and a very high academic attainment, which applies to pupils who have been selected and those who have not?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where grammar schools have been retained, the standard of education is high. The Conservative party has clearly laid out its plans in the White Paper. The Conservative party is the party of choice. Of course, the Labour party has always had choice—the choice to support the national curriculum, the choice to support testing, the choice to support inspection and the choice to support the raising of standards, but it has chosen not to support those excellent changes.
    Mr. Barnes: Why has the Secretary of State changed her mind about selection since her statement in 1994?
    Mrs. Gillan: It is typical of Labour Members to keep harking back to something that occurred 20 years ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two years."] Their policies are 20 years old and their thinking on education is from Neanderthal times.

    Local Education Authorities
    Sir Michael Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the 10 worst-performing local education authorities on the basis of national examination results. [33209]
    Mr. Paice: The 10 local education authority areas with the lowest percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more A to C grades at GCSE were Islington, Knowsley, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Manchester, Lambeth, Newham, Hackney, Liverpool and Sandwell.
    Sir Michael Marshall: In that sad picture—sad for the parents and sad for the children involved—what common feature does my hon. Friend detect? Would I be right to assume that none of those authorities is Conservative controlled?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. Of course none of those authorities is Conservative controlled—none of them has been for some considerable time. That is the common theme that he rightly identified. It is Labour, in reality, in control of education. Those authorities have been controlled by the Labour party—with a little help from the Liberal Democrats in a couple of cases—for many years. That is why they are consistently at or near the bottom of the table on education standards. That is the reality, not the pious words of the Labour party. If people want to see what Labour is really like in control of education, they need only look at those authorities.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not extremely dishonest of the Minister to draw comparisons with inner-city authorities, which have a high incidence of immigrant children whose first language is not English, when the Government are cutting section 11 funding to assist such pupils?
    Mr. Paice: Most inner-city authorities are spending vastly more than the national average. Indeed, Lambeth is

    333
    at the top of the spending tree for primary schools and second from the top for secondary schools. The tables that we publish demonstrate that there is no correlation between pupils' achievements and the money being spent on them by wasteful authorities.
    Mr. Day: Am I right to believe that the Labour authorities that rank in the bottom 10 are wedded to the principles of so-called progressive education, which have led to the destruction of such vital assets in schools as competitive sport, and believe that schools cannot produce pupils who could be classified as winners? In many schools, entire classes of losers have therefore been produced, which is not in the pupils' best interests and destroys opportunities for pupils of all abilities.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The authorities that, sadly, have been controlled by Opposition parties for many years have consistently promoted forms of education that have now been proven to fail pupils. They adopt allegedly "progressive" methods—if ever there was an abuse of a term, that is it. Such methods have destroyed young people's opportunities. Nobody could take any pleasure or pride from the fact that only 17.4 per cent. of pupils in Islington and 19 per cent. in Knowsley are gaining five or more GCSEs, but, somehow, the Opposition try to do so.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister share my concern that figures given to me in a written answer this morning show quite clearly that, last year, Tory-controlled Westminster increased its spending on bureaucracy so that it spends more than any other local authority in the country? Will he join me in congratulating Labour local authorities such as Sheffield and Birmingham, which last year further reduced the amount spent on bureaucracy and now spend less than half that spent by Tory-controlled Westminster?
    Mr. Paice: I am always glad to be asked a question by a former grammar school pupil, especially in the light of the allegations made yesterday about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's policies. Westminster achieves the best results of any inner-London borough, of which the Government and the Conservative party are very proud.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some lucky pupils in those very badly run authorities have assisted places at independent schools? Is it not a disgrace that the Labour party runs those authorities and many others so badly that it denies poor children proper opportunities, as it will by trying to abolish the assisted places scheme? That is typical of the Labour party.
    Mr. Paice: Given his knowledge of these matters, nothing should surprise my hon. Friend. It should not surprise him that Labour Members are intent on removing the ladder up which most of them climbed—the ladder of grammar or direct grant schools, which many attended. Indeed, earlier we listened to constant sedentary comments from a very prominent former grammar school pupil, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). [Interruption.] I do not like to be provocative. My hon. Friend should also take into account the fact that those authorities' failures extend not only to examination results; six of them are also among the 10 worst authorities for truancy.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she estimates there will be a grammar school in every town. [33210]
    Mrs. Gillan: Grammar schools have a proud tradition of helping the most able children to achieve their full potential. We want to encourage the establishment of more of them, as part of a spectrum that allows parents to choose the schooling that best matches their children's abilities and needs. The measures in the White Paper, "Self-government for schools", that we published yesterday will make it easier for grammar schools to be set up wherever that is what parents and schools want.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that the public response to the White Paper was that it is a sham, designed to fool the policy unit at No. 10 rather than being relevant to the needs of the majority of schoolchildren in Britain. If the Minister disagrees, and we are to take seriously the Government's proposal that there should be a grammar school in every town, will she say how many she expects there will be—first, before the general election and, secondly, before the millennium? Finally, let me raise a matter that was significant by its omission from yesterday's White Paper: how much new money has the Department been promised to create those new grammar schools?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman will have to read the White Paper again as he obviously does not understand it. The Government want to establish a range of schools to match children's varied talents, interests and needs. Grammar schools and other selective schools are an essential part of that range, but we are giving local communities the opportunity to decide whether they want a grammar school. I refer him to a recent survey commissioned by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It found that 54 per cent. of parents were in favour of a return to a fully selective education system. I would also draw his attention to headlines in newspapers such as, "Give us more grammar schools".
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will know that I have campaigned for the expansion of grammar schools for the past 23 years, ever since direct grant grammar schools such as the one that I was lucky enough to attend were destroyed by doctrinaire, narrow-minded socialist ideology. Does she agree that Labour's hypocrisy is especially shown by Opposition Front Benchers, who have so little faith in Labour local authorities such as the one that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) used to lead that they do not send their children to schools in those authorities but take advantage of Conservative policies of choice and diversity?
    Mrs. Gillan: I look no further than the Labour Front Bench to see the success of our education policies. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) could give many other Labour Members a private tutorial.

    Head Teachers (Retirement)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what study she has made of the reasons for early retirement of head teachers. [33211]
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has made no study of the reasons for early retirement of head teachers. She is, however, considering the issue of early retirement for all teachers following a recent report of the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Spearing: Was it not the duty of the Secretary of State to have done that some time ago, bearing in mind the reports from professional associations of rapidly rising early retirement through stress? Is not the task of a head teacher to assemble the appropriate educational offering for all pupils in the school, for which he should be provided with the resources so to do? Have not the Government's changes turned head teachers virtually into business managers, dealing with a variety of issues that are extraneous to education? Does that not prejudice the quality of teaching and education and affect the standards that are attained and are constantly on the lips of Ministers and Conservative Members?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman, rather uncharacteristically, has departed from the factual background to his question. He should consider the fact that only 2.3 per cent. of heads and 1.5 per cent. of deputies retired on ill-health grounds in 1994–95. That is hardly a torrent or a flood. He should also bear in mind the fact that the increasing rates of ill-health retirement in teaching are below those in the health service or even the civil service. That hardly suggests that head teachers are peculiarly stressed or are retiring earlier than anyone else. I repeat that the Secretary of State will examine the subject of early retirement from teaching. Presumably, that will encompass heads.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: When my hon. Friend looks in detail at the figures, will he bear in mind the fact that as we have now released schools from complete political control through local management of schools—and, ultimately, through the grant-maintained system—we are at last offering to those who aspire to be head teachers and to those who are head teachers the opportunity to run their schools for the benefit of the pupils? Essentially, that means that heads will be better off, will enjoy their job and will get greater job satisfaction. Are they not therefore more likely to stay for longer than those who wish to retire now?
    Mr. Forth: How typical of my hon. Friend to encapsulate the difference in attitude between the Government and the Opposition. He rightly identified the opportunities available to heads the better to run their schools, while Opposition Members saw it as a matter of stress and a disadvantage. There could not be a clearer difference.

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to extend the nursery voucher pilot schemes to other areas. [33212]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Our plans for nursery education vouchers are transparently well known. We expect to extend the voucher scheme to all local education authority areas in England in April 1997.
    Mrs. Jackson: In consultations with parents of nursery children in my constituency, I have found not one who wants the system of nursery vouchers foisted upon my area. Will he accept the sensible amendment accepted in the other place two weeks ago, whereby the pilot schemes for young guinea pigs in Wandsworth, Westminster, Norfolk and Kensington would be properly evaluated by the House before being extended?
    Mr. Squire: We are, naturally, considering the matter in light of the vote in the other place, but we remain confident that the scheme has many attractions for parents. I hope that when the hon. Lady next meets parents she will point out to them the result of the survey of parents in phase 1 areas, which disclosed that 87 per cent. of Norfolk parents already rate the scheme as very good or quite good. The chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, which represents some 20,000 voluntary groups across the country, spoke the truth when he said that the House of Lords had got it wrong and that at least 200,000 young children would lose out as a result.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme has met with great approval in Norfolk and that, in my constituency, the figure of 87 per cent. is probably an underestimate? Is he further aware that parents are very pleased, in spite of the great reservations expressed by the Labour establishment in Norfolk and elsewhere? Will the Norfolk schools that would have liked a nursery school project this year be given every possibility of getting one next year?
    Mr. Squire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his last question, but he will understand if I cannot give him that commitment this afternoon. The structure and sense of his comments is absolutely right, and his findings in Norfolk are reflected in each of the phase 1 authorities. The only danger is not the scheme itself but the distortions spread by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the junior Minister tell us why, in her letter to the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment stated that she thought that she would experience greater difficulty overturning the amendment in the Commons?
    Mr. Squire: Much as the Government's commitment to open government becomes more apparent week by week, I hesitate to embrace these discussions on the Floor of the Chamber. Labour has no policy on nursery education, despite 17 years in opposition in which to plan for one. All Labour is prepared to do is to seek to frustrate the expansion of a scheme to provide quality nursery provision across the country. Labour should be ashamed

    337
    of itself. To use the vernacular that is appropriate today, even if there is extra time in this area, there are no golden goals for Labour—there are only penalties for parents across the country.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What does my hon. Friend think has been said to the parents of children who are on the waiting lists, without much hope, of the state nursery units in Sheffield? Why has not the hon. Member concerned met them?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right. If only Opposition Members, including those representing Sheffield, would give the same consideration to spreading the range of choice of pre-school provision that the Government are delivering, matters would proceed more smoothly and parents would be the gainers.

    EU Social Affairs Council
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to attend a meeting of the EU Social Affairs Council; and what matters relating to working conditions she expects to be discussed. [33213]
    Mr. Forth: The next meeting of the Social Affairs Council is scheduled for 24 September. No agenda has yet been agreed, but I shall seek to ensure that the focus is on providing the environment to reduce unemployment and not on agreeing unnecessary, new and damaging European legislation. In the European Union, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field in the single market, an impartial referee in the European Court of Justice and no own goals to handicap our global competitiveness.
    Ms Quin: Has the Minister noticed that the principal employment policy adviser of the Confederation of British Industry recommends that the British Government end their opt out from the social chapter? How does he explain to his European counterparts the fact that British industry is increasingly ignoring Government advice on the subject?
    Mr. Forth: I wonder whether that would be the same adviser who advised entering the exchange rate mechanism. If so, we can safely discard the advice.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of accepting the social chapter and the minimum wage? Does he agree that those factors above all else have caused high youth unemployment in other European countries, whereas our young people have far better life chances and a better chance of getting jobs?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. To keep faith with our young people—happily, our youth unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of most of our partners and competitors—we must ensure that we do not embrace policies that will prejudice youth employment. We find it hard to understand how Opposition Members claim to be concerned about youth unemployment when all the policies that they would adopt would force it up.
    Mr. Meacher: If European social market legislation is so damaging, will the Minister explain why 90 per cent.
    338
    of that legislation was passed into British law by his Government before the social chapter was heard of in 1993? How can the social chapter be so damaging when only one measure—the European works directive—has been passed under it since 1993? Even in that case, the 140 British companies affected by the opt-out all later decided voluntarily to opt in. As the evidence shows that the member states with the best social provision are also those with the most competitive and productive economies, is not all the claptrap about the social chapter merely a cheap Tory pre-election stunt?
    Mr. Forth: I was trying to find something of substance in the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that I stumbled on one thing that he accidentally said that illustrates clearly the difference between our parties. The fact that businesses agree to do something voluntarily is entirely a matter for them. The difference is that we would not unnecessarily force something on businesses whereas his philosophy—old Labour personified—is to force businesses to do what he thinks is good for them. We recognise their freedom of choice.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the Council, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and Opposition Members that factories such as mine in north Yorkshire have to work when the work is there, not when some Greek Commissioner says that it is there? If we were saddled with the 48-hour week, we would lose orders and have to lay men off. What is he going to do about the 48-hour week? Will he compare the Government's approach with the spineless attitude of the Labour party to such matters?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, who knows about these things, is right to put his finger on the fact that measures that seek arbitrarily to limit the reasonable and realistic action of businesses are likely to prejudice the competitiveness of the European Union as a whole. As a member of that Union, that concerns us. We want Europe and Britain to be globally competitive; that is where jobs and wealth come from. Any measure that seeks arbitrarily and unthinkingly to trammel competitiveness is likely to prejudice our opportunities. The Government are examining carefully the directive that he mentioned and will respond in a proper way in due course.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the future of the mechanisms in respect of the jobseeker's allowance administered by her Department. [33214]
    Mr. Forth: The mechanisms necessary for delivery of the jobseeker's allowance will be in place by 7 October 1996 and reviewed as necessary thereafter.
    Mr. Burden: The Minister is surely aware that in the first year of the jobseeker's allowance it is estimated that 90,000 people will lose all their entitlement to benefit and that about 150,000 will lose part of their entitlement. Is the Minister familiar with the term "social insurance" and, if so, what would he say about a private insurance company that collected contributions on one basis then, without asking the customer, cut the benefits? Would not

    339
    he urge that customer to seek the advice of a solicitor against that private insurance company operating under false pretences? Why does not he operate the same standards for his own Government?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must occupy a peculiar world if he believes that every entitlement and
    340
    every benefit that has ever existed could never be changed in one direction or another. If he looks back at the record of the previous Labour Government, however long ago it may be now, he will find that that Government felt quite free to change entitlements, usually for the worse, for a large number of people, so I do not even understand the basis of his question.

First Scottish Standing Committee
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which you have been given notice.
It is my unpleasant duty to inform the House that, at the meeting of the First Scottish Standing Committee yesterday afternoon, I drew attention to the presence of roseanna Cunningham, the Member for Perth and Kinross, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, the Member for Moray, and Mr. Alex Salmond, the Member for Banff and Buchan, not being members of the Committee, in the part of the Committee Room reserved for the members of the Committee; and the hon. Members having declined to withdraw, the Committee ordered
That the Chairman do report roseanna Cunningham, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Alex Salmond to the House.
Madam Speaker: I understand that the Leader of the House intends to move a motion relating to privilege.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee, appointed in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.—[Mr. Newton.]
3.32 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: The motion before us is to give the Chairman of the Scottish Standing Committee powers. My argument is that the House should not give the hon. Gentleman such powers, certainly not until such time as the House has debated the issue of the conduct of Scottish business, which has been a running sore in the House for many years.
I intend to be brief, not just to stay within the rules of order, but also because I would not dream of depriving English Members of their right to watch the semi-final of the European championships later this evening.
I start by pointing out some of the precedents for motions such as this, some of which might surprise many hon. Members—because, from time to time during the past 20 years, every Opposition party has been involved in similar circumstances.
The first precedent I want to consider was in 1972 during consideration of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, when three Liberal Members of Parliament and three Labour Members of Parliament, two of them still distinguished Members of the House, went on to the Committee although they were not members of it.
The Members concerned were the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the late Jo Grimond, the late John Mackintosh, the late John Robertson and the late Tom Oswald.
In conversation with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber last evening, I reminded him of the precedent, and he remarked to me that that was something that he did as a younger Member of the House. I must take some comfort from the fact that perhaps that implies that I could still be classified as a younger Member.
342
Those Members in 1972 challenged the fact that Members from Scottish constituencies were not given the facility of serving on a Committee examining an extremely important Bill.
During the first sitting of the Standing Committee scrutinising the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 1988, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), still a Member of this House, interrupted the proceedings; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) was also in the Chair on that occasion. Although the Committee was suspended twice, the hon. Member for Springburn did not seek leave on that occasion to bring a motion before the House, and there was no debate in the House.
The argument used at the time by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West was that he was affronted by the fact that Members less qualified than he, from English constituencies, were allowed to debate and decide on Scottish matters, whereas he, a Scottish Member with suitable qualifications, was excluded.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Salmond: It seems that I have quite a choice.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: If the hon. Gentleman's objection is that English Members may vote on the Education (Scotland) Bill, was it inconsistency or hypocrisy that led him and his Scottish National party colleagues to see fit to vote on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill recently, even though it applied only to England and Wales?
Mr. Salmond: Before I answer that, I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. I am not objecting to English Members serving on Scottish Standing Committees. I object to Members from English constituencies serving on them—[Interruption.]—an important difference, which the hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate. Many Members who represent English constituencies are Scots, and some Scottish constituencies are represented by English Members.
Mr. Coombs: Answer the question.
Mr. Salmond: I am making the point that people who serve on Standing Committees should have a responsibility to their constituents. Members without a single affected constituent can, it seems, decide key areas of Scottish business.
Mr. Michael J.Martin rose—
Mr. Salmond: In a minute.
Mr. Coombs rose—
Mr. Salmond: I do not want to have to appeal to the Chair for protection, but Conservative Members should learn to conduct themselves in an orderly fashion. When I have finished answering the hon. Gentleman, I shall gladly give way to the Chairman of the Committee.
The former, an experienced Member of this House, should know that my colleagues and I make it our practice not to interfere in English business. The most recent example of that was the Family Law Bill. If the hon.

343
Gentleman checks the record, he will find that none of us voted on that measure, because it concerned specifically English business. It was, however, quite clear that the nursery vouchers Bill for England was going to be used to pave the way for nursery vouchers in Scotland.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I should point out for the record that, when the Committee was reconvened and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was present again, I asked him to leave, and he left. So there was no need to come to the House to seek any powers. I say this just in case the hon. Gentleman is implying that he has received different treatment.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should check the record, which he may not have with him at the moment. I remind him that he twice suspended that Committee, and then suspended it until the following Thursday. The Committee did not sit on the day in question, because the hon. Member for Falkirk, West was still in his place. The date was 19 January 1988, so the hon. Gentleman should check the record—
Mr. Martin rose—
Mr. Salmond: Far be it from me—[Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Salmond has the Floor.
Mr. Martin rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has the Floor, unless he gives way.
Mr. Salmond: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Springburn until I answer his question. The hon. Gentleman should note that, on 19 January 1988, the first sitting of the Scottish Standing Committee could not go ahead because the hon. Member for Falkirk, West did not leave the Committee. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee suspended the sitting until the following Thursday, but did not move a motion to report the hon. Member to the Floor of the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has other information.
Mr. Martin: I shall put it on the record again: the hon. Gentleman turned up on the following Tuesday. I know that, because we shared an office at the time. I told him that I was going to chair the Committee, and he said that he was going to come and sit there. He turned up on the Tuesday, made a protest, left to go to another Committee meeting, and it was all over.
Mr. Salmond: I think the hon. Gentleman should check the record-he will find that the Committee had to be postponed until the following Thursday. Perhaps, if I shared an office with the hon. Gentleman, I would not be standing here debating these matters on the Floor of the House.
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Mr. Salmond: I have already referred to two precedents, and before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I shall refer to two more.
344
The third precedent is the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill in 1989. Again, the Scottish Standing Committee was interrupted by me, by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and by the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan. We advanced the same argument: Members less qualified than Scottish Members were able to sit and determine Scottish business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Salmond: Again, I am spoilt for choice, but I think I should finish referring to my precedents before I give way to hon. Members.
The fourth precedent is the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill in 1994. Again, the Scottish Standing Committee underwent the exact same process, and yet again there was a debate on the Floor of the House.
My point is simple: these examples show that, concerning members across the Opposition parties, there is a running sore in the conduct of Scottish business. At various times and on various issues, Opposition Members have found it unacceptable that Members from English constituencies have been able to determine matters that they could not determine.
Mr. Foulkes: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I am thinking back to when the House constituted the Scottish Standing Committee. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman or either of his two colleagues seeking to serve on the Committee. Did he ask to serve on the Standing Committee? In fact, will he remind the House whether he has ever served on a Standing Committee?
Mr. Salmond: As the record will show, I have volunteered to serve on Standing Committees on Scottish business on every major piece of legislation. My difficulty has been getting on to the Committees—even if sometimes I am ejected from them.
Mr. Foulkes: No, no.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman says, "No, no." I remember a case when the hon. Member said that he was going to play Parnell with the House of Commons— that he would stand before the Mace. If the hon. Gentleman was still before the Mace, he would be kneeling, not standing.
Before we give powers to the Chairman of the Committee, there should be a substantive debate on the conduct of Scottish business, so that all these issues can be ventilated—so that we can decide whether it is appropriate for Scottish Members, who are responsible to their constituents, to effect these matters on Standing Committees.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman be specific in his answer to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)? Did the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) write to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection asking to be on this Committee? Yes or no?
Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Member can guarantee me that a letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection

345
will result in me and my hon. Friends being offered an opportunity to serve on these Committees, I will gladly write such letters.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am sure that my hon. Friends have been happy to serve on Standing Committees. Does the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) speak for Labour Front Benchers in offering us places on the Standing Committees? As he knows, the places are carved up by the Front Benchers.
Mr. Salmond: In my attendance at the First Scottish Standing Committee yesterday morning, I noted the degree of co-operation between the Labour and Tory parties. I have not witnessed that degree of connivance in any other Committee—or across the Floor of the House, despite the usual channels.
My argument is that we should not give the Chairman powers until there has been a substantive debate on the conduct of Scottish business. Two important precedents should give us cause to consider that point seriously. The first is the question of Welsh business.
A Standing Order of the House allows every Welsh Member to sit on Welsh Standing Committees. I understand that that Standing Order was introduced in the early years of this century. Is not there a valid argument, even in the confines of the unitary Parliament in which so many hon. Members believe, to improve the conduct of Scottish business and grant the same facility as exists for Welsh business?
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since 1907, Standing Order No. 86 has allowed every Welsh Member to sit on the Standing Committee of a Bill that deals exclusively with Wales. But, as my hon. Friend will understand, the reality is that, as soon as that Standing Order comes into play—for example, during consideration of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994—the Government move a motion to abolish its powers. In reality, a majority of English Tory Members told us what to do about the Welsh language and local government in Wales.
Mr. Salmond: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is well taken, and it shows that many hon. Members present, who say that the Standing Orders of the House should be observed, are prepared to reinterpret them flexibly, as the Welsh example shows, when they do not suit the objectives of the governing party.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you have often reminded hon. Members, during Question Time and at other times, that we must be conscious of how our debates look to our constituents and to people outside the House. My strong feeling is that people in Scotland do not understand why Members from English constituencies should determine issues such as Scottish education, nursery vouchers and the compulsory enforcement of testing, against the wishes of the Scottish people.
Under Standing Order No. 86(2), it is doubtful that the hon. Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) and for Langbaurgh
346
(Mr. Bates) should be considered as suitably qualified, not because they are English but because they do not have a single constituent who will be affected by the provisions that are being debated.
I offer one other reason why we should not pass this motion. Last autumn, a facility was introduced to the procedures of the House that we were told would make a substantive change in the way that Scottish business was debated and discussed. My hon. Friends and myself have spent much time, as have other hon. Members on the Grand Committee, visiting various airts and pairts of Scotland on Mondays in the past few months. Indeed, two of my hon. Friends have a 100 per cent. attendance record, a record of which few—probably one or two—Labour or Conservative Members can boast.
My point is that, while the Grand Committee goes on its visitations round Scotland and acts as a mobile press conference for the Secretary of State for Scotland, the real decisions are made in Scottish Standing Committees. They are made not in the Grand Committee by Scottish Members, but in the First Scottish Standing Committee, with a majority secured by the importation of three Members from English constituencies who are the silent majority.
When the Prime Minister speaks this evening about how Scotland gets a good deal in the House of Commons and how the House is sensitive to the conduct of Scottish business, he should answer the substantial charge of hypocrisy. While he makes those comments about sensitivity to Scottish business, he mobilises the majority of English Conservative Members to enforce on Scotland measures that are clearly unwanted by the Scottish people.
Mr. Michael Bates (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)indicated dissent.
Mr. Salmond: I see that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh is not in full agreement with the points that I have made. I wonder how many times he has explained to his constituents why he spends so much of his valuable parliamentary time forcing unwanted measures on a range of policies on the Scottish people and our constituents. I think that the people of Langbaurgh are entitled to a full-time Member of Parliament, as opposed to one who spends so much time facilitating the conduct of Scottish business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Salmond: No, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Members must resume their seats.
Mr. Salmond: Despite the precedents to which I have referred, and the fact that hon. Members from all Opposition parties have made similar points—often in the manner in which I have described there are those who would say that seeking to attend Standing Committee meetings against the wishes of the Chairman is not the way to deploy our grievances.

347
I noticed that the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), claimed in today's press that such actions represent a challenge to the sovereignty of the House of Commons. It occurs to me that the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends signed a document, "The Claim of Right", which was a challenge to the sovereignty of the House of Commons.
Mr. Tam Dalyell indicated dissent.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I assume that he did not sign it.
I have no problem with challenges to the sovereignty of the House of Commons. However, I think that it is interesting that people who sign documents in Scotland are prepared to employ totally different arguments when they are in London.
Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman said that he would be brief. I am beginning to suspect collusion between the Scottish Nationalists and the Government Front Bench to prevent us from hearing the words of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).
Mr. Salmond: I had intended to be brief, so as not to disrupt the hon. Gentleman's viewing of the football semi-final this evening. However, I have been diverted by his intervention and by those of his hon. Friends. My only sin has been to give way too generously to hon. Members, and to expect them to make more substantive points than they have been able to manage.
The conduct of Scottish business in the House would be deployed better if we had a serious debate on the Floor of the House about a specifically Scottish Bill. The legislation under consideration is no ordinary Bill—it is one of the few measures certified by the Chair as a specifically Scottish measure. Under those circumstances, and before we give draconian powers to the Committee Chairman, should we not debate whether such legislation could be facilitated by allowing Scottish Members of Parliament to decide the matter?
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As a Scot, I have a great deal of fellow feeling for his dissertation. I think that Scotland in these circumstances gets a rough deal, and I hope that that is rectified in future Parliaments. But I have to say, in making a positive and helpful contribution, that it is time the whole question of the composition of Committees was examined profoundly in this House of Commons.
I have been here for 30 years. I have detailed knowledge of a limited number of subjects, but if ever I have applied for a Committee on which I might have made a positive contribution, have I been accepted? I could name the Committees—but I do not want to bore the House. If one's face does not fit, if one is not a mate of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection—and I certainly was not—and if one did not have the right contacts with one's Whips Office—we have all had happy and less happy experiences in the past 30 years—one does not stand much chance of selection. This whole question needs to be profoundly re-examined.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray somewhat wider than the motion under consideration.
348
I can understand why many Committees might be somewhat wary of the hon. Gentleman's formidable debating skills and his experience in the House of Commons over many years. He expresses his frustration, and reminds us that it is not only Scottish Members of Parliament who are frustrated in these matters. I am sure that he would be the first to recognise—as he said—that there is a specific matter—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: This is a filibuster.
Mr. Salmond: I have tried to be generous to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Every item of Scottish business is not only filibustered but gerrymandered in this place by his right hon. and hon. Friends, who dictate Scottish business against the wishes of the Scottish people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I realise that he was about to conclude.
The hon. Gentleman said—and rightly so—that the Bill in question is a purely Scottish measure. Will he go back to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), and say why he voted on an equivalent English Bill, which he said had implications for Scotland? If the Bill that we are debating upstairs in Committee is a purely Scottish measure, what were those implications that were so important that he and his hon. Friends voted?
Mr. Salmond: We received representations from many organisations in Scotland, including the teaching unions, saying that we should take a look at the measure, because, in so many ways, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland were trying to take Scottish education in an anglicised direction. The measures that he supports today in England are exactly the same as the ones that will be introduced in Scotland tomorrow. On that basis, given the representations that were made by the teaching unions and others, we deemed it appropriate to vote against it.
Any examination of the record will show that my hon. Friends and I do not vote on specifically English matters as a matter of course. Indeed, I have been criticised in the House for not exercising a vote on specifically English matters. The Minister should note that, if he wants to anglicise Scottish education, he will have to accept that Scottish Members must take note of what his colleagues are doing south of the border, because what is being done to fragment and divide the education system south of the border is what will be done to fragment and divide it in Scotland later on.
My substantive point is to draw attention to the anomaly whereby specific Scottish business, certified by you, Madam Speaker, is not decided by Scottish Members who are responsible for their constituents. As I have pointed out, there have been many precedents in the past 20 years or so involving hon. Members of all Opposition parties in the House, which shows that we are debating not an isolated incident but a running sore in the way in which the House of Commons debates and takes decisions on Scottish business.
Before Labour Members go into the Government Lobby, they should reflect that, many times, their own constituency Members have made similar points. Surely

349
the House is generous enough, before proceeding with the motion, at least to concede a debate on the substantive concern that all Scottish Members should have about the conduct of Scottish business in this place.
3.57 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I was minded to support the motion of the Leader of the House before I heard the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Having heard him, however, I am even more convinced that the motion is absolutely necessary. His speech was extremely revealing, and gave us no good reason to vote against the motion.
I intend to be brief, unlike the hon. Gentleman, because I personally regret the fact that the House has to spend time debating this motion when we could be debating the motion on the health service, which applies to Scotland as well as England. If the hon. Gentleman had read his Order Paper, he would have realised that what he is doing today is ensuring that time is taken from a critical debate on health, which affects Scotland as much as England.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady seems to be suffering from a misapprehension. My hon. Friends and I do not decide when these motions are brought to the Floor of the House. That is a matter for the Leader of the House, no doubt in concert, through the usual channels, with the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should have thought about that before he disrupted the Committee yesterday. If he does not know enough about procedure to realise that his actions yesterday would lead to this motion, he is obviously not very well informed on the procedures of the House. It struck me while he was speaking that he had one concern about today, and it was not the health service debate. There is a football match later this evening. If that is his priority, so be it, but I do not think that it is the priority of the people he represents.
Hon. Members take different opportunities to make their points in the House, and it is legitimate that they protest about the activities of the Government or other hon. Members. The House has many procedures and safety valves—points of order and other mechanisms—allowing hon. Members to raise issues, and disruption of a Committee of the kind that we saw yesterday is extremely juvenile behaviour. If hon. Members choose to protest in that way, they must take the consequences, and today's motion is a direct consequence of what happened yesterday.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was strangely convoluted. For instance, he did not say why he had chosen to disrupt that particular Committee at that particular time, rather than disrupting any other Committee dealing with Scottish affairs. If he were consistent, he would disrupt every Committee of which he is not a member—I gather that there are quite a lot of those.
Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman was so worried about the membership of the Committee, why did it take him six sittings to work out that it included three English Conservative Members? What was he doing during all that time? I have not followed the Committee's proceedings very carefully, but I do not imagine that the English Conservative Members were making a tremendous contribution. Nevertheless, I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to notice their presence before now.
350
As for the interest that the hon. Gentleman and his two hon. Friends have taken in the Bill, I note that, on Second Reading of the Bill, a succession of Labour Back Benchers spoke, one after the other. I do not think that you, Madam Speaker, would have called them if members of other parties had sought to catch your eye. I think we can be certain that this was no more than a simple device.
Mr. Salmond: My hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) spoke on Second Reading. But am I right in thinking that the Labour party did not vote against Second Reading, although both the Liberals and the SNP did so?
Mrs. Taylor: Again, the hon. Gentleman should do his homework. He should remember the reasoned amendment we tabled on that occasion. As for the fact that one member of the Scottish National party spoke, what a big deal! After all, the measure affected Scotland, and, as I have said, there was scope for other hon. Members to intervene. There was a succession of Labour speakers; had members of other parties wished to speak, they could have caught the Speaker's eye.
I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman has decided that in future he wishes to participate in Standing Committee sittings. It has been brought to my attention that, since he entered the House in the 1987–88 Session, there have been 51 Standing Committees on Bills affecting Scottish legislation, which have had 227 sittings. The hon. Gentleman is so keen on contributing to discussion of such affairs that he has managed to attend one sitting of one Committee.
I am afraid that the record of the hon. Gentleman's party is not always terribly good. No member of the SNP could find time to serve on the Committee considering the Deer Bill—enacted in 1991—the last for which membership was requested. The real problem is that my hon. Friends were doing far too well on the Standing Committee for the Scottish nationalists' liking. The Scottish nationalists were making no substantial contribution. Their tactics were wrong, and they had no real ideas about the legislation. In order to mask their ineffectiveness, they staged a silly juvenile prank. I do not believe that the House will, on this occasion, have any sympathy with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his colleagues. They were foolish yesterday, and they must accept the consequences.
4.4 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to support my right hon. Friend's motion, and the House may well ask why—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—a Scottish Member of Parliament, having listened to the tirade from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), would do so. We must support the Chairs of Standing Committees. The Chair of a Standing Committee has the onerous task of ensuring that legislation proceeds in an orderly manner. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan made a revealing speech, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) added to the revelations.
It is interesting that some hon. Members do not serve on Standing Committees and give their service to the House, but not surprising, because they do everything they can to undermine the House and its workings. The

351
Scottish National party is all about doing that. The actions of SNP Members yesterday were designed to produce this debate, and for them to pretend otherwise is humbug.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I do not believe that the House wants to take lectures from the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) about humbug. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to the last Parliament, when he single-handedly prevented a Scottish Select Committee being established to monitor the work of the Scottish Office during the whole of that Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman is so loyal to the Chairs of Committees, why is he not backing the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Walker: I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman not to bring up that matter, because it is embarrassing to his party, not to me.
You are well aware, Madam Speaker, of the matter about which you have written to me, concerning the chairmanship of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. It was not my intention to mention that matter today—or the apology that had to be made by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of matters affecting that Committee. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has done his party a great disservice. Before the hon. Gentleman criticises me in relation to rules, procedure and behaviour, he should do his homework a bit more carefully.
We are seeing today a disagreement between the Scottish National party and the Labour party, dressed up—for that is what it is—as a pretence that principle is at stake. We all know that Standing Committees reflect the majority party, whichever it might be. We know that, if the Government of the day are to have their way, they must have a majority in Standing Committees—reflecting the composition of the House.
It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to pretend that his behaviour and that of his colleagues yesterday had anything to do with principle. He claimed to be making a point about the conduct of Scottish business and the composition of Standing Committees considering Scottish Bills.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury pointed out that the hon. Gentleman is in no position to make such a claim. As a Member of Parliament who has served all the hours on Standing Committees that the hon. Lady mentioned, I have noted the absence all his time in the House of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan from Standing Committees. It is clear to me that hon. Gentleman is in no position to comment on the composition of Standing Committees.
Mr. Salmond: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has voted three times over the past few years to eject me from Standing Committees considering Scottish business.
Mr. Walker: And I shall be doing so again today. The hon. Gentleman has clearly demonstrated to the House why it is right to do so.
What we saw yesterday and what we have seen today is a foretaste of what a Scottish Parliament would be like. I am delighted that this has been brought to the attention of the people of Scotland, because it clearly demonstrates
352
that the left-wing socialists of the SNP fell out in Committee with the socialists of the Labour party in Scotland.
Those of us who were in the Committee know that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—to put it kindly—was miffed. He and Labour Committee members had words, which was partly due to the fact that the very able but inexperienced Labour Front Bencher leading for the Labour party—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is very capable, and she was very impressive in how she handled the matter. But she is not fully aware of the House's rules and conventions, which seems to be a common failing of hon. Members from the Scottish Labour party.
The hon. Member for Monklands, East upset the hon. Member for Angus, East because she publicly—I thought unwisely—drew attention to the fact that she disagreed with him, and suggested that he did not understand the rules. That is a paraphrase, but that is roughly what happened.
The hon. Member for Angus, East felt that he had to do something about that. Because of that, we are all suffering today. That is why I believe that it is right that the House should support the Chairman of the Committee. If we do not support the Chair, we will never conduct our business properly.
Mr. Jeff Rooker rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 5.

Division No. 157]

[4.11 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ainger, Nick

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bowis, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Bradley, Keith

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Brandreth, Gyles

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Brazier, Julian

Alton, David

Bright, Sir Graham

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

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

Arbuthnot, James

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Budgen, Nicholas

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Burden, Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Burns, Simon

Austin-Walker, John

Byers, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Callaghan, Jim

Baldry, Tony

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Barnes, Harry

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Barron, Kevin

Carrington, Matthew

Batiste, Spencer

Cash, William

Bayley, Hugh

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Beggs, Roy

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Bellingham, Henry

Chidgey, David

Bendall, Vivian

Chisholm, Malcolm

Benton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clappison, James

Betts, Clive

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Body, Sir Richard

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Booth, Hartley

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Boswell, Tim

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

353

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hannam, Sir John

Coffey, Ann

Hanson, David

Cohen, Harry

Hargreaves, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Harman, Ms Harriet

Congdon, David

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Conway, Derek

Hawkins, Nick

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hawksley, Warren

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heald, Oliver

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Corston, Jean

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Couchman, James

Hinchliffe, David

Cousins, Jim

Hoey, Kate

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Home Robertson, John

Dalyell, Tam

Hood, Jimmy

Darling, Alistair

Horam, John

Davidson, Ian

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

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

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Hoyle, Doug

Day, Stephen

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Devlin, Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dewar, Donald

Hunter, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H

Hutton, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Illsley, Eric

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Ingram, Adam

Dowd, Jim

Jamieson, David

Duncan, Alan

Jenkin, Bernard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Dunn, Bob

Jessel, Toby

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham S O)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Eastham, Ken

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Key, Robert

Evennett, David

Khabra, Piara S

Faber, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Fabricant, Michael

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Fatchett, Derek

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Knox, Sir David

Flynn, Paul

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Forman, Nigel

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Foster, Don (Bath)

Leigh, Edward

Foulkes, George

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lidington, David

French, Douglas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fyfe, Maria

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Gale, Roger

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Gallie, Phil

Lord, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Luff, Peter

Garnier, Edward

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gerrard, Neil

McAvoy, Thomas

Gill, Christopher

McCartney, Ian

Gillan, Cheryl

Macdonald, Calum

Godman, Dr Norman A

McFall, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

MacKay, Andrew

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

McKelvey, William

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McLeish, Henry

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gunnell, John

Maddock, Diana

Hain, Peter

Madel, Sir David

Hall, Mike

Mahon, Alice

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Malone, Gerald

354

Mans, Keith

Shersby, Sir Michael

Marland, Paul

Short, Clare

Marlow, Tony

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Soley, Clive

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spearing, Nigel

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Spencer, Sir Derek

Merchant Piers

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Michael, Alun

Spink, Dr Robert

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Spring, Richard

Milburn, Alan

Sproat, Iain

Mills, Iain

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stephen, Michael

Morgan, Rhodri

Stevenson, George

Mudie, George

Stott, Roger

Murphy, Paul

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Nelson, Anthony

Streeter, Gary

Neubert, Sir Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Norris, Steve

Tapsell, Sir Peter

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Hara, Edward

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Olner, Bill

Thomason, Roy

O'Neill, Martin

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Page, Richard

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Parry, Robert

Touhig, Don

Patten, Rt Hon John

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Pawsey, James

Tredinnick, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trend, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Trickett, Jon

Pickthall, Colin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pike, Peter L

Tyler, Paul

Pope, Greg

Viggers, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wallace, James

Powell, William (Corby)

Waller, Gary

Prentice, Bridget

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N

Purchase, Ken

Waterson, Nigel

Quin, Ms Joyce

Watson, Mike

Radice, Giles

Watts, John

Randall, Stuart

Wells, Bowen

Raynsford, Nick

Whitney, Ray

Reid, Dr John

Whittingdale, John

Rendel, David

Wilkinson, John

Richards, Rod

Willetts, David

Riddick, Graham

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Robathan, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wilson, Brian

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Winnick, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wise, Audrey

Rooker, Jeff

Wood, Timothy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wright, Dr Tony

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Yeo, Tim

Sedgemore, Brian

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Mr. Michael Bates and

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. Roger Knapman.

NOES

Cunningham, Roseanna

Wigley, Dafydd

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Tellers for the Noes:

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Cynog Dafis.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee, appointed in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.

Point of Order
4.26 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Thursday, in reply to an oral question, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advised the House that measures associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy would cost around £1.5 billion over the next three years. I assumed that he made an error in reading his brief as previous written answers and the Minister's own eradication plan had put the figure at around £2.5 billion.
Last night, however, in her reply to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that
"the cost over the next three years was quoted as being £1.5 billion."—[Official Report, 25 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 250.]
She said that Ministers had looked at the consequences of all the schemes and that she could now tell the House that the cost would be around £2.5 billion. She then asked whether the House would accept that "updated figure".
The Parliamentary Secretary was seeking to give the House two messages: that the Minister was merely quoted as underestimating the amount and that she had a new, updated figure to give us.
I assume that the £2.5 billion does not include the cost of the selective slaughter programme agreed by the Prime Minister in Florence. I fully appreciate that the Minister is away and that the Parliamentary Secretary is not available, but I hope that in due course the Minister will give us a clear statement on those costs. They are large sums of money and it is only right that the House should be properly informed.
Madam Speaker: I noticed the updated figure that was given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary. The comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) will have been noted. Perhaps he will wish to take the further opportunities to put questions and to press the matter.

Energy Conservation (Provision of Information)
4.28 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of information to be provided in connection with the energy efficiency of residential buildings.
I am delighted to have the chance, rather belatedly, of introducing a measure that will apply in England and Scotland. It will have three effects: first, it will cut the fuel bills paid by home buyers; secondly, it will save, energy and improve the environment; and, thirdly, it will create jobs in the construction industry. Each of these desirable aims will be achieved without using a single penny of taxpayers' money.
The Bill provides for all mortgage lenders—be they building societies, banks or other financial institutions— to require from house purchasers an energy rating survey of the property that they wish to purchase. That is not an onerous requirement. House buyers who require mortgage finance to enable them to purchase a property already normally have to undertake a survey of the condition of the property that they wish to buy. To include in such a survey an assessment of the energy rating of the property will involve little extra work—it is estimated that it will take perhaps an extra 15 or 20 minutes on the part of the surveyor. The additional cost, therefore, to the house purchaser will be of the order of £10, or £20 at the most.
The energy rating takes the form of a standard assessment procedure rating that will give a figure on a scale from one, for the most energy-inefficient properties, to 100, for those properties that are the most energy-efficient. I am glad to say that this system now has the support of the various groups that had previously backed rival and competing methods of analysing the energy efficiency of a property. That period of competition and disagreement has ended, and there is now general support for the SAP rating system.
New homes, for the most part, are built to a high-enough standard to achieve satisfactory levels of energy efficiency. The Bill is therefore targeted at the large stock of second-hand homes, the vast majority of which were built before considerations of energy efficiency were as important as they are today. Last year, about 680,000 second-hand properties changed hands, with three quarters of those transactions being completed with the help of a mortgage. Therefore, the effect of the Bill would be that, each year, about 500,000 second-hand properties would have the benefit of having an energy rating survey carried out.
The owners of those 500,000 properties would be made aware of the potential scope for cutting their fuel bills by a modest investment in energy-saving measures. In many cases, those owners may be made aware of that fact for the first time. Far too few people are aware of how much can be done by quite modest expenditure to save energy, and thus to cut fuel costs. The payback period can be rapid. For example, the cost of insulating a loft or a hot

357
water tank can be recovered in as little as two to three years. Insulating a cavity wall is a rather more expensive exercise, but here too the payback period can be five years or less. The same is true of the purchase costs of a gas condensing boiler.
In those various ways, house buyers can achieve substantial savings over a short period, but the Bill will not merely be of advantage to them. As more and more homes are subject to an energy survey, so the environmental gains will accumulate. Let us make a cautious assumption that perhaps three out of five home buyers—once they were aware of how much they could save by investing in energy-saving measures—will take the rational and self-interested decision to improve their homes in that way. If the number of house transactions remains at its current relatively low level, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could reach 270,000 tonnes annually within 10 years. By the middle of the next century, virtually the whole stock of second-hand homes would have received an energy rating. By then, we could expect savings in emissions to have reached 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year. That would make a substantial contribution to meeting the national target to which Britain is publicly committed.
Finally, let me draw attention to the employment consequences of those measures. Much energy-saving expenditure results in highly labour-intensive work. The immediate and direct consequence of encouraging home buyers to spend money on energy saving would be to increase employment in the construction industry and related sectors.
I cannot imagine what objection there could be to the proposal. The only possible one arises from an entirely proper and understandable concern that Parliament should not impose additional statutory obligations on house buyers, who already face a cumbersome process. However, the measure would achieve benefits that would justify the modest additional legislative hurdle. Even that objection could be overcome if we built a time limit into the measure.
358
Let us suppose that the statutory requirement for an energy rating was to be imposed on lenders for a limited period of, say, five years. I am confident that, at the end of that period, the concept of having information about the energy efficiency of a home would become so widely accepted that it is inconceivable that lenders or borrowers would wish to proceed with a transaction without it. No one would think of buying a house without knowing what council tax band it was in. No estate agent would publish the particulars of a property that they were trying to sell without giving such information. Yet many households spend far more on heating and hot water fuel costs than on council tax. It should be a matter of routine for everyone involved in the transfer of a house, whether the vendor, the purchaser, the estate agent, the lender or the surveyor, to supply energy efficiency information.
I recognise that, under our procedures, the Bill will not pass on to the statute book this Session. I hope that after the ballot for private Members' Bills in the autumn another hon. Member will pick up the issue. Energy efficiency is not a glamorous or politically controversial subject. One of its problems is that it is not sufficiently exciting to attract the attention of many people. However, there are few issues where environmental and economic aims so harmoniously and completely coincide. Rarely are the interests of the individual directly affected and those of the community so entirely at one. It is against that background that I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Yeo, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Richard Needham, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Dr. Michael Clark and Mr. Patrick Thompson.

ENERGY CONSERVATION (PROVISION OF INFORMATION)
Mr. Tim Yeo accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of information to be provided in connection with the energy efficiency of residential buildings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 162.]
Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.39 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that patients are suffering as NHS services are overstretched, that there is a shortage of intensive care beds, that waiting lists are long and set to rise, that patients have to spend hours on trolleys in Accident and Emergency Departments because of the cuts in hospital beds and that community and mental health services are struggling to meet growing need; believes that the Government aims to reduce the NHS to a safety net service, that people should not be forced to pay to go private to get excellent and prompt care and that the NHS must meet patients' needs and expectations; regards it as a scandal that extra resources put into the NHS have been squandered by the Government on extra bureaucracy for the internal market; and calls on the Government to cut the red tape and put the money into patient care, scrap the internal market, replace GP fundholding with GP commissioning, and thereby renew the NHS as a one nation health service which is fairer and more efficient.
  For millions of people throughout Britain, the NHS means security and peace of mind. At a time of growing insecurity—insecurity at work and fear of crime—and uncertainty, the NHS means knowing that there is at least one area of our lives where we can be sure that we will get what we need when we need it, no ifs, no buts. That was the founding principle of the NHS that Labour created, and that remains its central principle today, or at least it should be.
  But the NHS is under threat. People are having to pay for more and more aspects of their health care. If the Conservatives were to be re-elected at the next election, they would strip the NHS down to all but the basic emergency services. We know that from what the Conservatives are doing and saying.
  Services are being pushed out of the NHS. Take dentistry. First, the Tories put up charges so high that the dentist's bill makes one think that one has gone private. Then it becomes harder and harder to find an NHS dentist, so people do end up paying to go private. NHS dental lists now have 2 million fewer people than two years ago.
  Take long-term care. The Tories promised care from the cradle to the grave. Then they closed the nursing beds in the NHS and people now have to pay to go private or go through a means test.
  More and more people are having to pay for their operations. The number of people covered by private medical insurance has more than doubled. Under the Tories it has risen by 124 per cent.
  As NHS hospital beds close, private hospital beds open. During the past 15 years, the number of private hospital beds has increased by 66 per cent., while the number of NHS hospital beds has been cut by 28 per cent.
  The Tories are beginning openly to admit that what they really want is for the NHS to be cut down to core services, as they describe them, so that it becomes a safety net service. The Secretary of State, in his recent statement to the House on long-term care for the elderly, said:
  360
  "The Government believe that the principal responsibility for making that provision must rest with the individual citizen … We shall continue to provide a safety net."—[Official Report, 7 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 29–31.]
  On BBC's "Question Time" last month, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "The real question is, 'What are the key core things we should be doing and what are the things that are further down the list of priorities that are less important for health services to be doing at the public expense?'"
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Lady accurately quoted from a statement that I made on the subject of the social care of the elderly. As she knows, ever since 1948, social care has been a means-tested service within the welfare state. Is she committing the Labour party to making it a universal tax-funded service?
  Ms Harman: I am saying—[Interruption.]Might I be allowed to answer?
  I am saying that the Government are pushing services that used to be free under the NHS out of the NHS. People used to get long-term nursing care in the NHS. Then it was an NHS service and it was free. Now it has been pushed out of the NHS, redescribed as a social care service and is subject to a means test. It is no good the Secretary of State trying to fiddle around with definitions. A whole generation of elderly people in Britain know that the Government's promises have been broken.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. She knows that we have closed 20,000 geriatric beds in the NHS over 17 years and we have seen a growth in the private sector of nursing and residential care of bed space of 250,000, 80 per cent. of which are supported from public funds. Is she committing the Labour party to providing that service on the taxpayer? The elderly people of this country are entitled to know the answer to that question. Is she committing Labour to paying out of tax revenues, or is she committing Labour to continuing the present policy?
  Ms Harman: I am saying that a whole load of services that used to be provided free in the NHS have now been pushed out of it, so that people have to pay for them or they have to be means-tested. The figures that the Secretary of State has just given the House have assisted my case.
  As the Tories cut services, patients suffer. In December last year, 10-year-old Nicholas Geldard collapsed at home, seriously ill. No intensive care bed could be found for him in the Greater Manchester area, so he had to travel 69 miles across the Pennines to Leeds, where he arrived 12 hours later, but he was dead on arrival. There are many other similar tragic cases. The survey that we carried out earlier this year of paediatric intensive care units showed that during the first four months of this year no fewer than 330 critically ill children were turned away from intensive care beds—in every region of the country.
  What was the Secretary of State's response to this tragic situation? He said, certainly, that there should be more intensive care beds, but he said nothing about where the extra money would come from—
  Mr. Dorrell: I announced the beds.
  Ms Harman: Yes, but not how they were to be funded. Up and down the country doctors are warning that patient

  361
  care is being put at risk and that the quality of care that they want to give their patients is suffering because the Government want hospitals to treat more and more patients, but without enough money. I should like to quote some of the doctors who have spoken up on the issue. Dr. Christopher Adams, consultant neurosurgeon at the John Radcliffe infirmary in Oxford, resigned his post, saying:
  "It got to a stage where we were churning out patients so fast it became dangerous."
  As hospital beds are cut—the Tories have cut one in five NHS hospital beds—patients are forced to wait for treatment on trolleys in casualty departments. In January this year, the British Medical Association warned of a severe and prolonged crisis in the acute sector. In the Good Hope hospital, people were having to wait for long periods on trolleys in accident and emergency. Ambulances brought in more patients, but they could not be taken out of the ambulances to the A and E department because the department was already full of patients lying on trolleys, unable to be admitted to the wards because the wards were full—because bed numbers had been cut. So the patients waited in the ambulances. Then, when the ambulances were called out again, they could not do their emergency runs because patients were still waiting inside them.
  In the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, patients waited up to 19 hours on trolleys, and a consultant physician warned:
  "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."
  Patients are waiting too long on waiting lists for treatment. That means misery for them. Having to wait a long time for treatment is the criticism that patients most frequently make of the NHS. One million people are waiting for operations; 250,000 of them have been waiting for more than six months. Long waits matter a great deal to patients and to those working in the NHS, yet only last week the Secretary of State for Health gave hospitals the go-ahead to increase the times that they make patients wait before treatment. Patients are often in pain or discomfort, and waiting puts additional stress on them and on their families and jobs.
  No wonder so many people feel driven to pay to go private for the health care that they need. It is not just hospitals; community and mental health services are also struggling. But even after people have had to wait a long time for treatment, when they telephone the hospital on the day of an operation, they are often told that it has been cancelled. Last year 55,000 patients were told that at the very last minute. That number is increasing. It is unacceptable that patients have to wait months for treatment, only to have their operations cancelled on the day that they are due to go into hospital. Patients are being pushed into the private sector—pushed into paying— because of the fear and uncertainty of waiting and of operations being cancelled.
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I take it from the hon. Lady's speech that she endorses the fact that
  362
  trade union members take advantage of the independent sector—the Manor House hospital, the Benenden hospital, et cetera—and jump the queue?
  Ms Harman: The hospital that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is a long-standing charity; it is not at all the same issue that we are dealing with today—we are dealing with the failure of the national health service to meet people's needs under the Conservative Government. People are having to pay, to go private, to get the treatment that they need.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: No, I shall not give way again.
  I refer to 64-year-old David Miller, from Surrey, who had his operation cancelled no fewer than 10 times at the Hammersmith hospital. In May this year, he decided to go private, only to be told that his liver cancer had spread too far and that it was too late for surgery.
  The Government tell people, "Your child needs an intensive care bed, but they are all full—sorry." People are being taken into accident and emergency departments and told, "You will be admitted, but you will have to wait hours on a trolley because all the beds in the hospital are full—sorry." People who are told that they need a hip replacement want to have it done right away, but they are told, "You will have to wait months—sorry."
  While the Government are telling patients that they cannot get the care that they need, and while one in three health authorities is rationing, they are pouring money into the NHS bureaucracy. That is a scandal. The Government are saying, "We are putting more money into the NHS"—it is in their amendment, and no doubt the Secretary of State will talk about it. It is not how much money they are putting in; it is what they are spending it on. The doctors are right: the NHS needs more money for patient care, but every year the Government are siphoning off precious NHS resources. Hundreds of millions of pounds that should be going to patient care services are being put into the growing bureaucracy to run the internal market.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Is the hon. Lady aware that if we were to guarantee accident and emergency admissions in every single hospital in the country, we would have to keep approximately 20 per cent. of our hospital beds vacant and that the resources to service the beds would have to be made available? Is she in favour of that?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Member has referred to occupation levels. It is true that because so many patients are being crowded into so few beds, hospitals do not have the capacity to deal with sudden or temporary increases in emergency admissions. That is what happened this year— there was a temporary increase in emergency admissions. There were no safety margins—one in five hospital beds had been cut—and people had to wait for hours on trolleys.
  It now costs an extra £1.5 billion every year in administration just to run the Government's NHS internal market. Of course it is important to have good management of patient care services, but that is not the sort of management that we have seen growing under the Tories. The Tories have not appointed managers who are dedicated to running clinical services; they have appointed thousands

  363
  of extra accountants and bureaucrats to run the internal market. There are managers to draw up annual contracts, managers to consider and approve extra-contractual referrals, managers to negotiate with general practitioner fundholder practice managers, managers to send out invoices, managers to query invoices and managers to deal with the managers who are querying the invoices.
  Apparently, the NHS now needs no fewer than 70 different types of managers—not managers to run the patient services, not managers to get the best out of the people and the money in a large organisation, but managers to manage the market. There are sales managers, contract managers, business managers, marketing managers—the managers who manage the market have no connection with patient care, except that they are taking money away from patient care.
  The NHS is tied up with red tape and it is bogged down in paperwork. For example, last year, my local hospitals—Guy's and St. Thomas's—had to process and send out 57,000 invoices to health authorities and GP fundholders. My local health authority, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, is one of the health authorities to which the hospitals send their invoices. The madness of the Tory internal market means not only that Guy's and St. Thomas's have to appoint the managers to draw up and process 57,000 invoices and send them out to GPs and health authorities, but the health authority has to appoint managers to approve and process 26,000 invoices to buy health care for its local population from local hospitals. That is madness.
  Extra-contractual referrals are just one of the costly, bureaucratic examples of the Tory market madness in the NHS. Patients can now be referred to hospitals only if the GP—if the GP is a fundholder—or the health authority, if the GP is a non-fundholder, has a contract. Otherwise patients have to get approval for an extra-contractual referral.
  I shall give the House details of the recent case of a woman with back pain who was being treated by her GP. She had been to the local hospital, but it could not sort her out, so she went back to her GP, who decided to send her to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital because the problem was serious and had been troubling her for some time. The GP had to apply to the health authority for approval for an extra-contractual referral and it took five months for that to be approved.
  Five people were tied up in the red tape of processing the case, let us remember, of a woman being sent to a specialist by her GP because the local hospital could not help. The GP had to fill in forms and make telephone calls. The director of public health at the health authority had to fill in forms and make telephone calls. The administrators at the health authority and the administrators and the consultant at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital had to waste their time and money, too.
  The result was that the woman was given approval to go to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital for £120-worth of consultation. That was the value placed on her treatment, but we calculate that the bureaucratic cost of seeking the approval, after all the procedures that had to be followed, was no less than £360. The treatment was worth only £120, yet the bureaucracy spent £360 to authorise it. If the Government cut the red tape and put
  364
  the money into patient care, three patients could have been treated at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital instead of lingering on waiting lists.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Ms Harman: If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, will he confirm that he will abolish the extra-contractual referral system, which we warned all along was wrong? Will he abolish it and put the £22 million that it costs every year into patient care? Will he admit that we were right and that the system was market madness?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady has accurately described the process of the extra-contractual referral system as it now is, but she has omitted to mention that I announced a month ago that it will be simplified.
  Ms Harman: I know well the announcement that the Secretary of State made a month ago. I read the document, which has the catchy title "Seeing the wood, sparing the trees"—it emanates not from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but from the national health service executive. I have examined carefully what the Secretary of State plans to do with extra-contractual referrals. He seeks not extra-contractual referrals, but compliance with a protocol: it is the same market madness. Until the Secretary of State recognises that he cannot run the service through the market, he will continue to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into bureaucracy that should go into patient services.
  The Government are seeking protocol compliance instead of extra-contractual referral approvals. But it will make no difference: it will still tie up GPs, hospital consultants and those in the health authority. However, instead of ECRs, it will be protocol compliance. That is nonsense.
  Mr. Dorrell: You don't understand it.
  Ms Harman: We understood it when the White Paper was put before the House. We predicted what would happen, and it has.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady responded to my challenge when I said that she did not understand it. She cannot understand it if she claims that the health authority will still be involved in the approval of ECRs. That is what we are abolishing.
  Ms Harman: Health authorities will be involved in drawing up the protocol and establishing compliance with it. They are specifically included in the protocol requirements with which GPs must conform. It is not me, but the Secretary of State, who does not understand how the system will work.
  It cannot be right that, while more managers are being appointed to run the internal market, the number of nurses on the wards is being cut. There are now 20,000 more managers in the NHS than there were five years ago. At the same time, there are 50,000 fewer nurses on the wards. That means that there are more people to count the cost of care and fewer people to provide it. The expenditure

  365
  of public money must command public support. The public do not want to see money drained from their front-line services into bureaucracy.
  There is no point in the Secretary of State saying that he will reduce the number of managers and that he is "bureau-sceptic". His Government created the internal market and that system demands bureaucracy. Until he scraps the market, the demands for red tape will grow and grow. The administrative costs of the NHS have soared from £2 billion to £4 billion in the past 10 years. But that is only the beginning, because the market is still in its infancy. Only half of GPs are fundholders. If the Government were to take forward their plans and all GPs were to become fundholders, administration costs would double.
  A hospital that is quoted in the Secretary of State's report complains that it must have 900 separate annual contracts with 900 different fundholders. If the Tories got into office again, that hospital would have 2,000 fundholders and 2,000 separate annual contracts. It would have to send out hundreds of thousands of invoices every year.
  As I predicted, the Secretary of State has said that his recent efficiency scrutiny report will reduce bureaucracy in the NHS. However, the savings that he purports to announce do not exist—they are wishful thinking. It is an inescapable fact that his system—the internal market—drains £1.5 billion a year from patient care into bureaucracy. The Government cannot scrap the bureaucracy because they will not scrap the internal market. They will not do what the people want: cut the red tape and put the money into patient care.
  The provision of public services must command public support. Public services must provide what people want and people's expectations will change over time. Labour will renew the NHS. We will strip out the market, strip away the bureaucracy and put the money into patient care. We will also recognise changes in people's lives and in their aspirations. People want services that fit in with their lives—they do not want to reorganise their lives around service provision. People do not want to have to wait and then receive an appointment card through the post—which probably arrives while they are on holiday—telling them when it is convenient for the NHS to treat them.
  Last year 5 million patients did not turn up for out-patient appointments—the technical term is "Do Not Attends". Those 5 million people received appointments without being asked whether they could make them and they were unable to cancel them. People receive appointment cards through the post—at last notifying them of the date of their appointment—but if they try to contact the service provider they may get an answerphone or they may be referred to someone else. Therefore, they are unable to cancel their appointments.
  People want to book a time for treatment that fits in with what is going on in their lives. It should not be a matter of waiting until a person is told when his or her hernia operation will be done. People should be able to choose the time so that an operation interferes with their work or family arrangements as little as possible. People want a say in where, when and how they are treated. They do not want to wait. The private sector knows that, which is why the newspapers and our letter boxes are full of invitations to go private.
  366
  The advertisements say, "The NHS makes you wait. You don't want to wait and you don't have to wait—go private". The system then becomes more unfair and more expensive. Those who can afford it, go private—many of them reluctantly. Those who cannot afford it are left using a service that inexorably becomes a poor service for the poor. Any service that is used exclusively by those who have no other choice is doomed to decline. A public service cannot thrive on a captive audience. While more and more people become refugees out of the NHS, those who cannot afford to pay to go private are left behind. They are not grateful, but resentful because they cannot get the care that they need promptly. People should not have to pay to go private: they should get what they need on the NHS. The Government should cut the waste and cut the waiting. They will not, but Labour will.
  The choice before the country is clear: a struggling NHS that is being stripped back to a safety net under the Tories or a one-nation NHS that is renewed as a public service under Labour. The British people want Labour's future for the NHS. That is one of the many reasons why Labour must become the Government after the next election.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I inform hon. Members that Madam Speaker has decided that there shall be a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 7 pm and 9 pm.
  5.7 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:
  'congratulates the staff of the National Health Service for providing high quality care to a record number of patients, and notes that their achievements have been underpinned by the Government's unique commitment to increasing National Health Service funding, which has meant an extra £9.5 billion since 1992, and is dismayed that the Opposition proposals put ideology before patients, in particular by removing the option of fundholding from the 50 per cent. of general practitioners who have decided that this system offers the best prospect for their patients.'.
  This afternoon, the House has witnessed yet again a spectacle with which we have become depressingly familiar during health debates. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) had time to set out clear answers to the questions that many people within and outside the national health service are asking about the Labour party's future policies for the NHS.
  What are the hon. Lady's answers to the questions about the future of primary care? What are her answers to the questions about the future of mental health care and cancer care? How would she organise training and research within the national health service? How would she address the questions of clinical effectiveness that are at the core of modern health care delivery?
  The most important question from the British Medical Association this week is how much money Labour would put into the national health service. Will Labour give a commitment to deliver more than an average of 3 per cent. growth in real terms over 17 years? That is what we have done since 1979. Will Labour commit itself to matching our funding record for the national health service?
  Ms Harman: When the Secretary of State mentions the increase in resources that he has taken from the public

  367
  purse and put into the NHS, will he say how much of that figure he has siphoned away into bureaucracy? Will he confirm that, in one year, 50 per cent. of the extra resources in the NHS were siphoned off and never went anywhere near patient care?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady had better contain her patience, as I have quite a lot to say about the internal market and administrative costs. I shall come to that in the fullness of time.
  When I gave way to the hon. Lady, she dodged the question about how much money Labour in government would provide the NHS. The House and the country will understand that, in one speech, the hon. Lady cannot cover all those questions, but it is depressing that she did not touch on a single one of them. That is something that neither I nor the country will understand. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is already returning to the charge of postponing the shadow Cabinet elections. We see in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph that the Labour Whips have told the Leader of the Opposition that the party's health spokesman faces a humiliating defeat and that she could receive as few as 40 votes. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is loyal to the hon. Lady. Nobody could accuse him of being anything other than very loyal—indeed, almost touchingly and sentimentally loyal—to the hon. Lady. He talks a lot about middle-class insecurity. He seems to see the hon. Lady as an important element in meeting the concerns about middle-class insecurity.
  My sympathies are with Opposition Back Benchers, because from their cradles they have been brought up to believe that the NHS is home ground for Labour. They are used to losing arguments on defence. Indeed, they do not remember winning an argument on defence. They are used to losing arguments on the economy. They are not very interested in wealth creation. They are used to losing arguments on law and order, because they know that they voted against all the effective measures. What they cannot forgive the hon. Lady is that they are now losing arguments on health within the NHS and the country as well.
  To my hon. Friends I say spare a thought for Labour Back Benchers in their predicament. Here we are in a pre-election year, and the Labour leader, last week, went to a major health service conference to deliver a much trumpeted speech, which was said to set out Labour's agenda for the future of the NHS. How was that speech received the following day? The Independent devoted its whole editorial to an assessment of the Labour leader's speech.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: It did not mention you.
  Mr. Dorrell: It did not mention me that day because I had not yet spoken.
  Under the heading "Labour on health: an acute case of evasion", the editorial said:
  "not a great deal was to be expected of Tony Blair's keynote speech on health yesterday. In the event, even less was offered."
  Mr. Henry McLeish: How was it received?
  Mr. Dorrell: It was received as a failure by The Independent. Let me quote further. [Interruption.]
  368
  The doctors were not there in huge numbers, either. It was primarily a conference of health authorities and trust managers. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many sedentary interventions, particularly from hon. Members on the Front Benches. I expect Front Benchers in particular to set a good example.
  Mr. Dorrell: The editorial continued:
  "professionally, organisationally and morally the health service is in remarkably fine fettle. To suggest otherwise, as Labour may well do, is to play into the hands of those merchants of social policy apocalypse who are willing us into a crisis that does not and need not exist".
  I do not agree with everything that The Independent writes, but I agree whole-heartedly with that.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: If the Secretary of State wants to know what is depressingly familiar, and if he is genuinely concerned about Opposition Back Benchers, he will be aware that our speeches will be limited to 10 minutes. He has spoken for seven minutes and has not said a word about the NHS or about his Government's record over the past 17 years. Will he please get on to the subject at some point?
  Mr. Dorrell: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity when his leader's speech on Labour's home subject is received as badly as that by The Independent.
  The person responsible for that policy failure is the hon. Member for Peckham. I shall go through some of the themes that she developed in her speech—they are familiar Harman themes—and analyse precisely what they mean. Let us begin with the slogan "Labour would abolish the internal market". I want to be clear about what the phrase "the internal market" means. We have a system under the reformed health service where we do not fund hospitals and health providers directly. We fund them through purchasers. We fund those purchasers in turn on the basis of need through a weighted capitation formula.
  Mr. McLeish: Massive bureaucracy.
  Mr. Dorrell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party is committed to maintaining precisely that structure.
  Health authorities are in turn free to commission care from individual trusts and other providers of health care in a way that reflects local need and the views of general practitioners, both fundholding and non-fundholding, including commissioning. The market, in so far as an internal market exists in the NHS—it is a phrase of which the hon. Lady is fond—exists because the purchasers control the money into the system and are free to decide which providers in the health service meet the needs that they identify.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Don Touhig: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No. This is an important point. I want to develop it; then I shall give way.

  369
  That is the sense in which there is a market. Funded purchasers are free to decide where they commission care. The health service wants to know which elements of that system the Labour party would change if it were given the opportunity. The policy document that it issued last summer was absolutely clear on this matter: it would not change the separation between purchase and provision. It said clearly:
  "We want health authorities to commission care, but we do not want them to run hospitals on a day-to-day basis."
  So the Labour party maintains the distinction between purchaser and provider. Furthermore, the policy document was also clear that purchasers would be free to choose where they placed their commissioning arrangements.
  Mr. Touhig rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I said that I shall give way in a moment. I want to develop this argument.
  Again I quote
  "Health authorities will have agreements with different local health services and will have choice as to where to place them to suit patient needs."
  Last summer, Labour was committed to maintaining both key elements of what the hon. Lady describes as the internal market.
  Not more than a fortnight ago, the hon. Lady went to the Institute of Health Services Management to deliver a speech. A passage of her speech was headed "Abolishing the Market", so I was interested to read it to understand precisely which of the two building blocks of the market she would strike away. Would it be the separation of purchase and provision, or would it be the freedom of purchasers to choose where they commissioned care? Her speech was clear in answer to the first question. She—no more than her predecessor—is not in favour of abolishing the distinction between purchase and provision. She said:
  "The planning of health services and the delivery of health care are distinct responsibilities. They will be kept separate."
  That could not be clearer. But what is very much less clear to me, and I suggest it should be to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) if he reads the six-paragraph section on abolishing the market, is how maintaining the purchase and provision system that we have established— [Interruption.] I am quite prepared to amend the terms to planning and commissioning, as the distinction between them is not very different. In what sense does that deliver abolition of the market?
  The question that the hon. Lady did not answer in her speech to the IHSM was whether she maintains the second commitment made by her predecessor, in regard to the planning of health authority functions. Would health authorities be free to choose, in the interests of local people, where they commissioned their health care? If the answer is yes, there would be no change in the present internal structure of the health service; if the answer is no, there is a fundamental change. In that event, the hon. Lady would indeed be abolishing the internal market. We are entitled to know whether that is the policy that Labour would pursue.
  The question to the hon. Lady is extremely simple: would Labour abolish health authorities' right to choose the commissioner that satisfied the needs that they have
  370
  identified, or not? I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, so that she can clarify whether Labour would abolish that freedom to choose.
  Ms Harman: The Secretary of State has involved himself in an administrative confusion. In my speech, I gave the example of a woman with back pain. She had used the service of her local hospital, to which she would have been referred by her GP. If she cannot be dealt with in that hospital, her GP will refer her to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. She will either use her local services—if she and her GP decide that they should start her care—or be referred to a specialist hospital. The patient and her GP, not some bureaucracy, will decide.
  Yes, there are distinct and separate functions. That seemed to confuse the Secretary of State. He says that on the one hand there is responsibility for the day-to-day running of services in the hospital, and on the other hand there is responsibility for assessing the health needs of the local population and planning and shaping services to deliver longer-term improvements. Those are simple functions, but it might help the right hon. Gentleman to concentrate on our view—with which we have been consistent throughout—that the decision on where a patient should go is not a commissioning decision, but a decision to be made by the patient and his or her GP.
  Mr. Dorrell: That argument has two fundamental flaws. First, many aspects of health care are not the subject of GP referral. The hon. Lady has not told us who decides where provision is commissioned when there is no GP referral. Secondly, she has said that the health authority is responsible for planning the pattern of health care provision, but if the GP has absolute freedom of referral without any reference to the health authority's planning, there is no connection between the planning and the referral.
  The hon. Lady has not made clear the means by which health authorities discharge their obligation to ensure that health provision in a particular district meets the need that they have identified. That is the question that she must answer. Are health authorities free to choose the hospitals from which they commission, or not? The hon. Lady has avoided that question again.
  Mr. Touhig: I am very interested in what the Secretary of State has been saying about commissioning and the market. Would he care to comment on Gwent health commission's decision to market-test the care of the terminally ill? The main provider of that care is a local charity which spent £10,000 on its tender bid, only for the commission to abandon the whole procedure halfway through. Is that a sensible use of resources and planning?
  Mr. Dorrell: Any health commission that is deciding which services best meet the needs of its patients should be free to look at alternative providers, whether, in the case of terminal care, the provider is a charity-funded hospice or part of the NHS. The principle that a health authority should be free to choose where to commission care is a fundamental part of good management, and I do not resile from it.
  Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State said earlier that health purchasers should be free to purchase care for their local populations with resources given to them on the

  371
  basis of need. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman promised health authorities a 1.1 per cent. increase. Birmingham was given an increase of 0.5 per cent.; rather surprisingly, Huntingdon was given a 1.7 per cent. increase, despite being shown to have one of the highest levels of bureaucracy in the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Huntingdon's health care needs are greater than those of Birmingham?
  Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am simply saying that there is a formula determining the distribution of resources—a need-based formula, devised for us in the university of York. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) knows very well how that formula evolved. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) knows of a better way of channelling resources to different health authorities, reflecting both population and need, we shall be happy to hear from him. As the House knows, we allow the system to evolve every year.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must then make progress.
  Mr. Bayley: The Secretary of State did not acknowledge that the Government refused to implement the independently determined formula. Instead, they amended it in order to shift resources from the north to the south, and from inner cities to shire counties.
  As the right hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in understanding the difference between Labour and Conservative policy on the NHS internal market, may I give him a practical example? My constituency contains an extremely large fundholding practice with 20,000 patients. That practice decided to shift its contract for community health services from one trust to another, believing that that would improve services for its patients. Its action greatly weakened the services of the trust that it had formerly used, and the level of community health service support for all the other GPs in York declined as a result.
  The difference between Labour and Conservative policy is that the Conservative party's free market approach allows such dog-eat-dog developments, while the Labour approach of commissioning would make one general practice deal with another and reach agreement on the best pattern of local services.
  Mr. Dorrell: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman had better clear his line with his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. Only a few minutes ago, the hon. Lady was saying that, under her system, GPs would have absolute freedom to decide where patients were referred. It is essential to focusing on the delivery of high-quality care for those responsible for fashioning the pattern of provision to do so in the way that is dictated by the interests of the patients for whom they are responsible. That is the merit of the fundholding system.
  Let me give the last word on the merits, or otherwise, of the system that we have introduced, which grants health authorities greater freedom to decide where to commission care. That last word should, perhaps, go to Lord Winston, a Labour spokesman in another place. According to him,
  372
  "The internal market has resulted in many hospitals improving outpatient facilities, improving comfort for patients, improving waiting times in clinics and in some cases improving waiting lists."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 1460.]
  There is no doubt that that has happened. That is the case for the internal market, which the hon. Lady is committed to abolishing—or so she says; she cannot substantiate the commitment.
  Another issue which the hon. Lady is fond of discussing is that of administrative costs. We have heard more from her on that subject today. Both she and the Leader of the Opposition are fond of referring to what The Independent, in that same editorial, described as a "golden stream" of resources available from administrative savings.
  The hon. Lady's problem is the same as that of the Leader of the Opposition: no one believes them, for very good reasons. It is the original political mirage. The hon. Lady says that we do not need to provide extra resources; we can secure all the resources through administrative savings.
  Mr. Purchase: The Government have been saying that for years.
  Mr. Dorrell: We have not. We have delivered growing resources to the NHS and a more efficiently managed health service for more than 17 years, because benefits to patients are our driving consideration.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who was the predecessor of the hon. Member for Peckham as Labour's health spokesperson, was clear about NHS management. On 19 February 1995, she said on "The World This Weekend":
  "I don't think it's really in question any more that the NHS has been undermanaged in the past."
  What would Labour do about ensuring that the NHS of the future is efficiently managed? The hon. Member for Peckham is fond of talking in general terms of saving £1.5 billion in administrative costs, and she did so again today, but that proposition is absurd.
  Ms Harman indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady denies saying that. I will quote her verbatim from an interview which she gave on 20 June, not long ago:
  "As we have said, we think the overall figure is somewhere between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion."
  The hon. Lady says that is the extent of the resources that will be available to expand provision. How would Labour deliver remotely that sum of money?
  Ms Harman: We have said, and we stick by this claim—the Government's figures and independent estimates support this—that it costs an extra £1.5 billion every year in administrative costs to run the market. If one abolishes the annual contracting round, all the people needed to negotiate contracts will no longer be required. If fundholding is replaced with GP commissioning, hundreds of thousands of invoices will not have to be processed by managers. When there is freedom of referral and patient choice instead of the bureaucracy of extra-contractual referral, there will be no need for all that paperwork. Chris Ham said on the "Today" programme:

  373
  "They can release hundreds of millions of pounds from the internal market and put it into patient care."
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady has been more precise than Chris Ham. She claimed that she will release £1.5 billion. The House must assess the plausibility of that claim, remembering that total NHS expenditure on general and senior managers, and on administrative and clerical staff in 1994–95, was £2.4 billion.
  Ms Harman: That is M2.
  Mr. Dorrell: No, that figure is a lot more than M2. It relates to all administrative and clerical salaries in the NHS. The hon. Lady claims that she can save almost exactly 60 per cent. of total spend. I invite the House to test that claim against basic plausibility. Does anyone believe that the hon. Lady, by taking over my job, can release 60 per cent. of the health service's administrative costs? In the interview that I quoted earlier, Nick Ross asked the hon. Member for Peckham to demonstrate how she would set about releasing 60 per cent. of NHS administrative costs. She started with an example involving £20 million. She may have identified one saving of £20 million, and I assume that was not the smallest that the hon. Lady could think of—it was probably one of the largest. The hon. Lady must find another 74 examples to get near her target of savings of £1.5 billion.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: In 1977, Cumbria had one health authority and the only salary paid was £2,000, to the chairman of that quango. Today, Cumbria has two health authorities and seven trusts at a cost of £332,000. Is that money not spent on bureaucracy?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in several respects. In 1977, every part of the country was covered by a general practitioner committee, health authority, area health authority and regional health authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Labour Members may deny that that happened, but in 1977, every part of the country was within a health region, area and district—and was also covered by a family practitioner committee. Another problem for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is that Labour is committed to maintaining the distinction between health authorities and health providers.
  Two other factors make the Opposition's claim of £1.5 billion savings wholly absurd. One of the big administrative savings which we made in recent years was from the abolition of regional health authorities—which Labour voted against. Removing that unnecessary tier produced savings of £100 million. The £2.4 billion spent on administration accounts for 7.5 per cent. of the NHS total spend. How much does the hon. Lady intend to save from that sum? I have already committed the Government to a programme of administrative savings to reduce administrative costs by £300 million, which is 1 per cent. of the total. If the hon. Lady thinks that she can go beyond that, she owes it to the House and to the country to explain how.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: NHS consultants, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and family doctors, apart from asserting that the money spent on administration is
  374
  a misuse of resources, complain about the impact of the paperwork and bureaucracy brought about by the 1990 Act. Does the Secretary of State say that they are wrong? Does he accept those complaints, and will he do something to meet those serious concerns—which are driving many people out of the profession?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have implemented the recommendations of two efficiency scrutinies which were designed to reduce unnecessary administrative processes. When the Leader of the Opposition addressed the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts last week, he acknowledged that nowhere in the health service was there an appetite for further fundamental administrative reform, which is why I am confident that Labour would not deliver the pledge that it is fond of making, to abolish the internal market. I am confident, because when Labour Members are asked to demonstrate how they would do that, they never can.
  Another question for which we await an answer from Labour Front Benchers relates to fundholding, which has troubled them ever since fundholding was established. The policy background is clear. More than one half of GPs have opted into fundholding because they believe that it delivers the best prospect of care for their patients. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Labour Members must ask GPs what other purpose they had. If GPs do not believe that fundholding offers the best prospects of improving patient care, one must inquire why they made that choice.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: What about the Audit Commission?
  Mr. Dorrell: The Audit Commission recently examined fundholding, and its director was asked about its report. He said on radio:
  "Most fundholders have…produced some benefits for patients and 10 per cent. of fundholders have done very well indeed."
  Given that 10 per cent. of fundholders have done well and all fundholders have produced some benefits, what is the proper response? We are clear that the right way forward is to level up. Where 10 per cent. of fundholders have led, we should encourage and ensure that others follow, to deliver the same benefits to their patients. Fundholding and the system that lies behind it are a ratchet to improve standards and efficiency. Labour takes a different approach. I want a precise answer to this question.
  Does the hon. Member for Fife, Central speak directly and with authority for Labour on the subject of fundholding? On 6 March, he went to Guildford—to the South Thames Fundholders Association—and, to that assembly, committed a Labour Government to abolish fundholding. His words were:
  "Fundholding will end on 31 March 1998",
  the year after an election, assuming that it would take place next spring. He went on to say:
  "The Audit Commission has shown that fundholding managers have not achieved anything worth saving. They will go."
  Is that true? The hon. Gentleman said that fundholding managers will go?
  Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dorrell: So it is not the Labour party's policy to abolish fundholding? We cannot run fundholding without

  375
  fundholding managers. Will they go or will they not? They are real people with real jobs. They are entitled to know whether the Labour party will sustain them in jobs. Will they go or will they not go? What is the answer to that question? We are entitled to know. I give way to the hon. Member for Peckham or to the hon. Member for Fife, Central.
  Ms Harman: I have said that we will replace GP fundholding with GP commissioning. We will do that not only because GP fundholding is unfair, part of a two-tier system, and because it makes it impossible to plan improvements across a locality, but because it costs hundreds of millions of pounds in bureaucracy and provides no extra benefit for patients.
  If there is a simple choice between employment of more practice managers or administrators to support practice managers and more health visitors or midwives—that is, in fact, the choice—we will choose to put cash into front-line patient services. We will not, as the Secretary of State is doing, champion mountain upon mountainous layer of extra bureaucracy. How on earth can he justify that?
  Mr. Dorrell: No one can say that I have not given the hon. Lady an opportunity to clarify the policy. The hon. Member for Fife, Central was clear: he said that fundholding would end. The hon. Lady has refused to endorse that policy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to remove any doubt, I shall give way.
  Mr. McLeish: I am very happy to put the record straight. With his experience, the Secretary of State should be a bit wiser in the material that he uses. The simple fact is that, after addressing a group of south Thames fundholders at their invitation, three of the fundholders—whom I regard as enthusiastic fundholders—provided copy to the periodical to which he referred.
  All the comments which were made were complete and utter lies. I cannot say anything more to put the record straight. They were made deliberately to achieve that in which the Secretary of State is indulging. I regret that, but I hope that I have put him straight on the record. I tell him sincerely that those comments and ideas attributed to me were not simply wrong; they were untruths.
  Mr. Dorrell: I accept that the hon. Gentleman was not accurately reported in that meeting, which, in itself, is not the most important issue in the world. What is important is for those who work in the fundholding system to know whether Labour would end fundholding. We still do not have an answer.
  Ms Harman: Yes.
  Mr. Dorrell: In that case, why is the hon. Member for Fife, Central at such pains to deny that he defended Labour policy to the south Thames fundholders? It is true or is it not true?
  Mr. McLeish: I expect a great deal more from a struggling Secretary of State. We are replacing fundholding. Read my lips: we are replacing fundholding. I said that the comments to which he referred were simply
  376
  untruths passed on from a meeting. That is the important distinction which he must draw. I hope that the Secretary of State will control his worst excesses and apply himself to the facts. We will replace fundholding.
  Mr. Dorrell: I understand what happened at the Thames meeting. I am simply picking up on the question of the word "end". I asked whether the Labour party would end fundholding.
  Ms Harman: Yes.
  Mr. Dorrell: Again the hon. Member for Peckham says, "Yes." Why is it that the hon. Member for Fife, Central leaps to his feet to deny that he used the word "end" when he went to the south Thames meeting on 6 March? The truth is that Labour Front Benchers have not agreed among themselves—still less have they agreed with anyone else in their party—what their policy is, and that is true not only on the fundholding issue.
  The same problem exists on the private finance initiative, which is an absolutely key issue for the NHS. The PFI offers the health service the prospect of escape from a system of capital planning of which it has been a prisoner since the day it was established. The PFI offers escape from short-termism. The Leader of the Opposition understands that. He said:
  "The PFI is right in principle."
  That may be the only matter on which he agrees with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who claims paternity of the PFI.
  So the senior people in the Labour party are quite clear where they stand on the PFI—they are in favour of it. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is also in favour of it; he is another member of this "team". He said:
  "We do not disagree with the PFI. How could we?…It was Labour who first thought of partnerships between the public and private sector."
  I am not sure that the idea of partnerships between the public and private sector did not antedate the foundation of the Labour party, if truth be told.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley is keen to be on the record as supporting the PFI. He is a shrewd fellow and clearly thinks that it is more important to his career to be close to the Leader of the Opposition than to be close to his boss on the Front-Bench team—because the hon. Member for Peckham does not support the PFI. His boss on the Front-Bench team takes a distinctively different view of it. She said that the PFI was
  "a new trick to privatise the Health Service."
  She also said:
  "I don't call it the Private Finance Initiative, I call it a privatisation initiative."
  We are entitled to know which of these various stars among Labour Front Benchers speak for the Labour party on health. They speak with different voices on different days to different audiences.
  Mr. Barron: What does the right hon. Gentleman think?
  Mr. Dorrell: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I think about the PFI. I think that it is the best opportunity that the health service has to ensure that it

  377
  escapes from capital short-term planning and delivers the modern equipment and buildings that we need to ensure that the NHS meets the challenges of the next century.
  The hon. Member for Peckham has an opportunity to tell us her position. We do not ask her to take the opportunity today, but we ask her to take it tomorrow. I understand that she will go to talk to Unison tomorrow on the PFI. Unison's position on the PFI seems pretty clear from this advertisement, which states:
  "PFI: the biggest threat to your health since 1947."
  It has even designed a logo to encapsulate the message, which states:
  "Unison says no to private finance."
  The hon. Lady has to decide before the meeting—at 12.30 pm tomorrow, at the Cumberland hotel—whether she is on the Unison side of that argument or on the side of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Rother Valley. The health service needs to know the answer to that.
  I conclude with a little advice to the hon. Member for Peckham. She would do well to back the Leader of the Opposition. In my humble opinion, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) remains her best and only hope, because the fact is that Labour's health policy is a shambles. Labour Members have a slogan on the internal market, but they have absolutely no substance to back it up. They have no idea what they would do about fundholding. They have no idea what they will do about the PFI. Their policy on resources on health relies on a non-existent El Dorado.
  The hon. Member for Peckham survives by the indulgence of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who demeans himself and his party by his unwillingness to face even one of the real issues facing the NHS. Where there should be substance, there is a vacuum. His speech to NAHAT last week was as trivial as it was content-free. Even the high spots last week were not so much soundbites as soundnibbles.
  The right hon. Member for Sedgefield has done the hon. Member for Peckham a favour by organising this debate on the night of the biggest football match of the year so far, so that she can conduct it in decent obscurity. But he cannot protect her for very much longer. Sooner or later her failure will be exposed, as the voters realise that it is the Tories who deliver on the national health service.
  5.48 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I want to raise two major points in the time available to me. One relates to fragmentation and the lack of co-ordination and the other to the bureaucratic nonsense of so many of the so-called activity and efficiency measures introduced by the Government.
  I shall start with the latter, but before doing so I want to comment on the remark made by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) about emergency admissions. He seemed surprised to find that we expect beds to be available for emergency admissions. I expect beds to be available and vacant, as needed, for emergency admissions, and I expect fire engines and ambulances to be standing waiting just in case I have a heart attack or
  378
  there is a fire at my home. I am obviously grossly extravagant in my expectations, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that those expectations are shared by the overwhelming majority of the population.
  The problems with bureaucracy go back a long time. One of its major manifestations is compulsory competitive tendering. CCT does not necessarily lead to the best value being obtained, but rather to trouble and expense being incurred in obtaining normal services.
  Although I am on good terms with my local district general hospital and although I believe that those managing it are doing their level best in difficult circumstances, I want to give a small critical example of the sort of problem that arises. Cleaning is obviously basic in a hospital. A constituent drew my attention to a lack of cleanliness at the Royal Preston hospital at the turn of the year. I was very concerned about that. I had been a patient in the hospital, but before CCT was introduced. I can tell the Secretary of State that the hospital was sparkling then.
  I investigated the problem and it was confirmed that there were difficulties. The chief executive said:
  "The problem relating to the cleanliness of the wards relates to difficulties encountered by the contractors in maintaining sufficient staff on the wards."
  I wrote asking whether the contractors did not pay adequate wages. I was told that they paid the same wages as were usual and that any recruitment difficulties experienced from time to time were more to do with the local labour market.
  I know that many, many people in Preston are desperate for work. I do not believe that good employers cannot obtain staff for a job that is not unpopular. As cleaning jobs go, cleaning a hospital is regarded as very useful work that carries with it some sort of standing in the community. It is not a rubbish job—or it should not be. It is an essential job.
  I was told by the chief executive:
  "A meeting is to be held shortly with the director of the company with an expectation that the problems will be overcome."
  The problem with that is that the meeting was scheduled to take place three months after the identification of the problem of lack of cleanliness. Three months is a long time to have cleaning problems in a hospital. That sort of problem arises not because of any inefficiency by the chief executive, but because he no longer runs the show. Other people employ those who are performing that essential service in the hospital. That does not lead to good management.
  I can tell the Secretary of State that I know of cases—not in the Royal Preston, but elsewhere—of apparent savings in supplies contracting. The only problem has been that the search for and the delay while waiting to identify those minuscule savings have more than swallowed up several years' cumulative savings. Again, that is not such a good idea.
  Finished consultant episodes are now a measure of activity or efficiency in the NHS. I do not believe that they measure either of those—they certainly do not measure efficiency. Indeed, I have recently learnt that they do not even measure activity. Gimmicks or ruses are employed so that a hospital can show a massive increase in its activity through finished consultant episodes. It is very easy—the hospital simply discharges patients to whom previously it would have said, "Come back next

  379
  month." It now says, "Go to your general practitioner." The GP then refers the patient back to the hospital, but it counts as a new consultant episode. The hospital can then say that far more people are being treated. Finished consultant episodes do not equate to people being treated. That should be lesson No. 1 for any Secretary of State who wants to get real efficiency in the NHS. Some of the effort put into accountants chasing pieces of paper should be put into finding sensible measures of outcome in the NHS and treatment for patients.
  I want to refer to the lack of co-ordination, especially in relation to child health. A report was published 20 years ago, having been commissioned by the then Government. It was one of the rare excursions by the powers that be into children's health—a subject that has been grossly neglected by the House and by successive Governments. However, 20 years ago the then Labour Government published the Court report, the essential plank of which was that there needed to be more co-ordination in the provision of a children's health service. We still do not have a children's health service. In fact, if any hon. Member cares to consult any voluntary organisation, I can promise that the story that that hon. Member will be told will be one of fragmentation, competition, lack of communication and general chaos, which in my opinion is not too strong a word to use.
  It is deplorable that there should be quarrels between health services, social services and education services about who pays for what, while the children go without. A sensible Government would give more than a steer on who pays for speech therapy, for instance, instead of allowing it to be shunted between local education authorities and health authorities, while the children go without. I would not mind if the argument were being conducted on the side, at the same time as provision was being made, although I would still think that they should not put too much time and effort into the arguments. However, the children go without while the squabbles continue.
  I am sure that, in general, voluntary organisations would echo an organisation called Aid for Children with Tracheostomies. It complains bitterly about difficulties in obtaining essential equipment, disposable supplies and respite care. All those are needed for children who are being nursed in the community, which is a growing trend. Along with that growing trend should go a growing provision of essential equipment, disposable supplies and respite care; otherwise, the children are being short-changed. Indeed, I do believe that children and their parents are being short-changed.
  Respite care at home is a very good idea. Unfortunately, it is difficult to organise. It is hard to understand that because keeping a child in hospital for one night costs about £150, apart from any treatment costs. I am reliably informed that full respite nursing care for the equivalent period would cost £80—a saving of £70. One would think that all authorities would be queuing up to provide respite care at home, but no money for such care appears to have been built into the community nursing service budget. Therefore, a liaison nurse—assuming that there is one, which is quite a big assumption in some places—has to approach a GP and request that the GP puts in a bid for health authority funding.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) cited examples of bids being made for extra-contractual referrals. I am not too happy about the fact that a
  380
  community nursing service may think that respite care is needed for a child at home, but can arrange it only through a GP, who must bid—which presumably means that it may or may not be granted—for something that is not only better but cheaper. Despite that, the Government tell us that they know how to run the national health service.
  There is a lack not only of respite care at home but of a community children's nursing service. Not only are children in hospital still as likely to be nursed in adult wards as they are in children's wards, but when they are discharged for continuing care at home, there is a 50:50 chance of there being no community children's nursing service in their area. That means that their care is not supervised by qualified children's nurses.
  For the benefit of Ministers' education—if they will spare time from their conversation and listen—I should point out that it is a prime tenet of children's medicine that children are not simply small adults. They require very specialist care, yet in 50 per cent. of the country there is no community children's nursing service and only 10 per cent. of the country has a 24-hour children's community nursing service.
  Children are increasingly being discharged to their homes when they still need quite elaborate care, which is undertaken by parents. Parents are entitled to proper back-up, supervision and, indeed, nursing services, but they are being exploited; gross advantage is being taken of their keenness to have their children at home. It is no part of a parent's duty to undertake, for example, procedures such as passing nasogastric tubes, yet in our constituencies a person may be expected to do that as the price for having their child at home instead of in hospital, which is entirely wrong.
  I am astonished at the complacency to which we have been treated by the Secretary of State, who thinks that the Conservatives deliver health care and protect the national health service. If he were a sick child or a parent of a sick child, he would be a good deal less complacent.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Lady recall that, when the Labour party was in power in 1977, it cut nurses' pay? Does she recall that in 1978 and 1979, sheets in hospitals—yes, including in children's hospitals—were not being cleaned because of the winter of discontent? Is that the legacy of which she is so proud?
  Mrs. Wise: If the hon. Gentleman chatted with any nurse in his area, he would find that a different comparison would be drawn. Nurses may not be going on strike collectively, but they are doing so individually by leaving the service. Has the hon. Gentleman ever chatted to a nurse and had that nurse tell him about the times when she has gone home and cried because of the inadequacy of the service that she was trying to provide? If he has not had that experience, he has not talked to many nurses.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends on the motion. I am quite sure that when we condemn the Government for their handling of the NHS, the bureaucracy, the lack of efficiency, the preference for competition over planning, the lack of any strategic thought and especially the lack of so many basic services, the people of this country are on our side of the argument and regard the Secretary of State's statements as simply incredible.
  6.4 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who, unfortunately, is just leaving the Chamber, but I totally disagree with her. Patient care in the national health service is most certainly not dominated by bureaucracy. To maintain that argument does a great disservice not only to the very good managers of the national health service but to the improvements in patient care that have been made since the advent of the national health service reforms.
  The taxpayer surely has every right to expect that public money is spent wisely and that it is committed to achieve the ends that Parliament considers most vital. It is simply common sense that, in an organisation the size of the NHS, that requires strong leadership and robust financial control. That is the role of NHS managers. I believe, along with many others, that the many recent achievements of the NHS would not have been possible without them. The achievements to which I refer have not in any sense been attained in an ivory tower; they are solid, demonstrable improvements in patient services. I shall give a few examples of such achievements by citing what has occurred in the two hospitals that serve my constituents.
  Over the past five years at the East Hertfordshire NHS trust, which operates at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of day cases and in-patients treated, including a 14 per cent. increase in emergency admissions. Over the same period, more than 33 per cent. more out-patients have been treated. Accident and emergency attendances have increased by more than 5 per cent. a year since 1991, but with the recent introduction of assessment units for children and GP-referred patients the trust has managed to control the number of unnecessary and, of course, costly emergency admissions.
  For patients awaiting routine surgery, there has been a huge reduction in overall waiting time. On 31 March 1993, almost 600 people had waited longer than 12 months for their operation, but on 31 March 1996 only one person had waited longer than 12 months. That patient was admitted in early April. The appointment of many new consultants enables the trust to provide a very wide range of services locally so that patients do not have to make the tiring and often stressful journey into London.
  Since 1991, a range of new units and services has been planned, built and put into service. They include a new day surgery unit that performs operations for more than 7,000 patients a year, the joint development of a magnetic resonance unit providing a state-of-the-art diagnostic imaging service, a new residential and respite care unit for younger physically disabled people, a pre-discharge unit for elderly patients awaiting assessment for longer-term care, a stroke rehabilitation unit, a complete new hospital ward for gynaecology patients and a high-dependency unit for coronary care and other serious medical conditions.
  That is typical of what has been achieved in east Hertfordshire since the introduction of the NHS reforms. Those who are familiar with the funding of health services in the shires will be well aware that it was certainly not the result of over-generous funding. While all those developments were taking place, the revenue funding available to east Hertfordshire rose by only 3 per cent. It is
  382
  a superb record of efficient management and it equates to an efficiency gain of 22 per cent. in total or 4 per cent. on average each year, which well exceeds the national target of 3 per cent.
  I am aware that those major advances in patient services are reflected throughout the country. They have been achieved not through bureaucracy but through skilled and effective management. Therefore, it must be clear that prudent investment in good managers pays dividends.
  Those achievements have been attained against a background of low management costs. In 1996, East Hertfordshire NHS trust recorded management and administration costs of 5.7 per cent. of its overall expenditure. That low total would be the envy of many organisations with far simpler remits. However, we must not forget that many doctors, nurses and technical and professional staff are involved in the management of the NHS, and that is exactly as the taxpayer would wish. Of the 5.7 per cent. that I have just quoted, 1.7 per cent. relates to staff with a clinical or technical function.
  Similar successes have also been achieved in the Chase Farm Hospitals NHS trust, which operates from Chase Farm hospital. Management of the trust is based around 12 practice management groups—the local version of clinical directorates, which were introduced in 1991—based on the major specialties. Each is headed by a PMG chairman who is a senior consultant in that specialty. PMGs are responsible for the quality of services, financial management, staff management and development and planning service developments through the annual business planning process. PMGs make budget and day-to-day decisions about services, so many important decisions are made at the chalk face rather than in the boardroom. About 50 per cent. of the full-time consultants are directly involved in management and there are excellent working relationships among medical, nursing, management and other professional staff.
  The past three years at Chase Farm have seen the development of new, innovative services and the appointment of 14 new consultants, with additional consultant posts in general surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, anaesthetics, paediatrics and accident and new consultant appointments in orthopaedics, ear nose and throat and medicine.
  The Chase Farm trust also places the highest priority on developing relationships and communications with GPs and various important initiatives have been developed. There is a GP forum, which is an open meeting for GPs that is held every Sunday morning. Farmfacts is a newsletter specifically for GPs and practice staff. Regular contact has been established with individual practices and doctors and managers visit GPs in their surgeries to focus on specific issues. There is a medical director helpline, which provides a regular time when the trust's medical director is available for GP queries, and there is also a GP adviser to the trust who attends all the board meetings.
  Through its relationships with GPs the trust has developed services much closer to patients' homes. For example, there is a consultant-led clinic in my constituency at the Cheshunt community hospital as well as numerous GP surgeries. Those initiatives are the result of discussions between consultants and GPs about the services that they require for their patients.

  383
  Another recent innovation is allowing a consortium of Cheshunt GPs to use the community hospital as a base for their out-of-hours service.
  Clearly, it is important to take account of every member of staff in the hospital who is involved in its management, but many managers retain significant clinical responsibilities. They include the chief pharmacist, the chief physiotherapist and other senior professional and technical staff. The medical director is a busy surgeon who fulfils his management role in four weekly sessions.
  It is an inescapable fact, however, that the NHS internal market, which has been in operation since 1991, has incurred some elements of bureaucracy that could be dispensed with by carefully targeted action. For example, we need to examine whether staff time should be taken up with issuing invoices and checking queries. There may be scope for simplifying the system—a task that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has well in hand through the major efficiency scrutiny that he has launched in the NHS.
  It would be particularly welcome for the recommendations of the scrutiny team to concentrate on those areas where staff have to check and confirm the details of patient care that have been provided in good faith by hospitals and community services. More straightforward administration of extra-contractual and tertiary referrals could be achieved at no cost to the effectiveness or control of patient care.
  Finally, after five years of enormously effective operation, we must acknowledge that some elements of the NHS reforms may require adjustment. As I have already said, that is now in hand. However, we must keep clearly in mind what the NHS reforms were meant to achieve. The purpose of the reforms, in addition to a much increased involvement of doctors in key decisions, was to ensure that taxpayers' money was spent on patient care and that that could be demonstrated clearly through a system of accountability between purchasers and providers. That those objectives have been achieved cannot be questioned.
  Mr. Bayley: I have listened with interest to the hon. Lady. She mentioned a considerable list of service improvements at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital over a five-year period and said that during that time the hospital's income had increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms. Earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State said that the NHS had received a real terms increase of 3 per cent. in each of those years. Which figure is right? Is it 3 per cent. per year or 3 per cent. over five years?
  Mrs. Roe: I was absolutely clear, but I shall repeat what I said so that the hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand me. He will find that I said that while various developments were taking place, the revenue funding available to East Hertfordshire NHS trust rose by only 3 per cent. Those in Hertfordshire complained because they did not believe that they were being generously over-funded, and colleagues from Hertfordshire have brought that to the attention of the House on numerous occasions.
  The objectives of the reforms have been achieved—that cannot be questioned. The Government's emphasis on improving patient care guaranteed that the objectives would be achieved, and with their worthwhile and timely
  384
  efficiency scrutiny they have seized the opportunity to take stock of the system that they put in place and to support the vast improvements in patient care that have taken place. I hope that the scrutiny's detailed recommendations will enable us to put an end to the claims that are made—so often on an uniformed basis—of an over-bureaucratic structure in the NHS. I am glad to confirm that, from my constituents' point of view, the focus of the NHS remains clearly on the patients, whose care must always come first.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This debate is rather like pass the parcel, with everyone hoping to get in before the match starts later on. For the information of the House, it is still nil-nil between France and the Czechs in the second half of extra time.
  The debate was started by a set of assertions in the Labour motion that I hope the Government—although they would generally be unhappy about agreeing to them—will accept. These include the statements that NHS services are overstretched, however many resources are put in; that there is a shortage of intensive care beds, certainly where they are needed; that waiting lists are over-long and people cannot get the service at the place or time they want; that there are still people waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency departments; and that there is great pressure on community health services. There can be no honest dispute about those matters.
  Whether or not it is the Government's policy, it is a fact—as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) rightly said—that many people are driven to private health care, even though they would not choose to do so, simply because they cannot be treated in time. Although there will always be rationing in the health service, and the debate is not about "whether" but "how", the test of whether we have a national health service is whether it has the capacity to meet the clinical needs of people throughout the UK.
  The key debate tonight is about whether we are spending money on unnecessary bureaucracy at the expense of and to the detriment of patient care. All the evidence and submissions that I have seen for this and other debates make it clear that we are. Bureaucracy has been growing and, in the words of my party's amendment—which was not selected—
  "excessive, expensive and often unnecessary"
  bureaucracy has resulted from the 1990 reforms.
  I accept that the Government have always made additional capital investment in the NHS, and that there has been real terms growth throughout their period of office, but it is getting a bit thin. It is now down to an increase of 0.1 per cent. this year over the last, but the Government are just about making their manifesto commitment. The test that matters to people outside is whether that growth results in money being diverted to the patient.
  There are issues that the Government have not yet accepted and addressed. For example, many people have experience of a two-tier health service. It does make a difference whether one is the patient of a fundholder or not, and one often does get seen more quickly as a patient of a fundholder. The reason for that is that the trust will take the fundholding patient because it wants to keep the

  385
  fundholder's contract rather than that of the commission or local health authority, because the trust can be more secure about the future of the commission's contract.
  There is a real debate about making sure that money is properly spent and not wasted. The Government accept privately—although they may not do so publicly—that an unnecessary amount has been spent on bureaucracy as a result of the changes. We must all have constituency experiences—I certainly have—of local GPs and people working at, for example, Guy's hospital in my constituency who have given examples of bureaucracy gone mad in terms of the way in which people move from the moment their need is expressed to treatment. No one can be satisfied with that in the health service.
  I shall refer to, rather than elaborate on, the professions I cited in an earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, who say that the system is far too bureaucratic and add that they are suffering under it. They are suffering not just because it is costing money, but because it is diverting resources and time, and demotivating them from the service that they want to provide.
  First—the hon. Member for Peckham referred to this event also—a news conference was organised by the British Medical Association on 16 May, the report of which stated:
  "Flagship hospital trusts are reportedly seeing their once-efficient departments slowly destroyed by government requirements for trusts to make year-on-year efficiency savings of 3 per cent. But they are not allowed to use any surpluses to increase capital resources, such as beds, in the following financial year. Instead they have to use them to cut prices."
  The Royal College of Nursing has signalled certain specific concerns, and has made the point that it is a bad economy to cut out senior nursing posts—one of the consequences of the Government's reductions in certain budgets at a time of nursing shortages. If there are nursing shortages and less experienced groups of nurses, we need the senior nurses in post to be able to make sure that they manage less experienced staff and plug the gaps better.
  According to the RCN, the number of nurses fell by 2 per cent. in 1992–93 and by 1.27 per cent. in 1993–94. More worryingly—I hope that this concern is shared across the House, and I know that the Select Committee has declared its concern—the number of pre-registration students has gone down considerably, from 37,000 qualifying in 1983 to 14,000 in 1995. There is real concern about the future of people coming into the health service to train as GPs or nurses.
  The RCN suggested two matters of particular concern. First, the introduction of local pay bargaining is extremely time-wasting and debilitating. There are now 488 sets of local pay negotiations—what a waste of time and effort. There should be a minimum guaranteed pay scale for nurses across the NHS. If one wants to top up that scale as a result of extra bonuses for work done—rather than negotiated pay—then that can be done.
  It is noticeable that, as of a couple of weeks ago, out of the 488 employers in the NHS, only 111 had concluded negotiations four months after the pay review report. That is the first thing we could do to save an enormous amount of time and effort, and to stop distracting people.
  Secondly, every year now, the commissioner, which is the local health authority, and the trust, as the supplier, must negotiate the contract. Contract negotiations year in,
  386
  year out, are the most time-consuming and frustrating exercises. Nobody in the public service wants a one-year contract, and we should get away from the idea that that is the way to run the NHS. That is what takes all the time, and that is where all these extra people are employed.
  That is also what produces all the paperwork referred to by the hon. Member for Peckham. We must move very quickly, and I hope that the Government will introduce regulations so that we have much less frequent contract renegotiations.
  The BMA has made some additional points. It says that there has been a huge duplication of administrative effort and a large diversion of resources into administration. GPs around the country—the Minister will have heard this from GPs in Winchester—tell us that the thing that bugs them the most is the paperwork. The Minister knows that that is the case whether it is our survey or his, private or public.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): They are bogus surveys.
  Mr. Hughes: They are not bogus, but they are consistent in saying that what bugs GPs most is paperwork. GPs went into general practice to be doctors, not administrators. The most recent survey of GPs' work load, which was conducted by the British Medical Association, showed that the average weekly time spent on practice administration had risen 85 per cent. since 1985–86. Claim forms, recording data, commissioning, fundholding and the patients charter were regarded as bugbears.
  I accept that the Government have addressed some of those concerns, and that the NHS executive report "Patients not Paper" made 65 recommendations, which are being implemented. I hope that we go on down that road, because we have to reduce the administrative burden on our doctors.
  I hope that the Minister will reply to the representation of the National Health Service Consultants Association. Its executive committee met the Secretary of State in March. It was asked what it would recommend, given that the Secretary of State would not concede that the 1990 reforms should be torn up. It wrote to him in May, but had had no reply to its propositions by 20 June. It is clear about the problem. I shall quote its view, because it is up to date and on the ball.
  The association states:
  "the great weight of evidence presented to us indicates that features of the Act and what has developed from it are the prime causes of the current low morale in all branches of the medical profession and indeed throughout the NHS."
  The association is frustrated because the service is fragmented. Loyalty to the concept of the NHS is being replaced by corporate loyalty to the local individual unit, which encourages destructive rivalries and antagonisms, lack of openness and interference with rational strategic planning. A major source of dissatisfaction is that the pricing system is patently arbitrary, is at the mercy of creative accounting, and produces clinical absurdities that bring the system into disrepute.
  The association says that there is no justification for the explosion in the use of external management consultants to report on every problem that occurs. The investment in newsletters and public relations departments to present

  387
  policies in the most favourable light is a bad use of money. The Minister has received 12 recommendations from the association to reduce bureaucracy and divert resources. I ask that the Government reply as soon as possible and accept, as far as possible, its proposals, which are based on experience and put reasonably, and which include many good ideas.
  A constituent of mine, in discussing the local council and its services, told me in a letter last week that he was busy fighting cancer and did not have time to fight bureaucrats. That is what people in the health service want to do. I shall put the central allegation to the Government and then make suggestions for progress. I shall do so quickly, for the twin purposes of letting other hon. Members speak and releasing myself.
  I hope that the Government accept that it is unarguable that administration costs have risen from 6 to 11 per cent. of spending since the 1990 reforms were introduced. We have gone from 500 general managers—I know that there has been some redefinition—to some 20,000. Redundancy payments have risen from £12 million to £114 million a year. That shows the extent of managerial upheaval.
  My first proposal for change is that the contract period be extended from one to three years. That is no good unless the people involved know how much money is coming down the tracks. It is no good if the budget is given, whether in west Hertfordshire or elsewhere, on a year-by-year basis. The same complaint applies to local government.
  A clear idea is needed of the money that will be available over the next few years. Of course circumstances change and there has to be flexibility, but it would be possible to have a financial framework within which one could know the parameters of the money that was to be given. Within that, there could be adjustments, but it would allow people to plan. Will the Government consider extending the one-year contract period to three years?
  Can we avoid having to price everything? It is quite possible to give a round figure price for the day cost of conventional care in a hospital. We should not have to cost separately the bedpan, the sheets, use of the fan and breakfast. There must be a day rate, as with paying hospital beds or private hotels. It is nonsense to go down to such particulars. We could avoid much costing by having a more generalised process.
  There must be a return to a sense of the public service ethos. One problem is that many managers have not come up from the national health service. Many people in the health service feel that managers do not understand what they have to manage. Let us train people from inside the health service—people who know about managing the service. When we need efficiency cuts, let us not imagine that cutting senior managers is necessarily the best way to achieve cuts.
  Thirdly, can we have longer staff contracts? Short-term staff contracts are demoralising and demotivating. It is not good employment practice, but it is more bureaucratic. It means that many agency staff are employed. It is possible to move efficiently and quickly to longer-term contracts that give everyone a sense of security and the institution a sense of coherence.
  Fourthly, staff planning needs must be better met. That used to be the responsibility of regional health authorities, but they have gone. We have regional health chairmen
  388
  with nothing to chair; that is nonsense. Local trusts or health authorities cannot plan staff levels because they are too small. They are having to form consortia. We need to return to regional planning of health service staff needs.
  Fifthly, can we end the nonsense of local pay negotiations? Sixthly, can we end the system that requires the health service negotiating process to be rather like the United Nations Security Council? When health authorities, trusts and other players must all agree something, it takes only one agency to say no to veto the whole thing. Perhaps a regional tier or national inspectorate could cut through that. Whichever is needed, we must avoid having to get everyone to sign up to everything before anything can go ahead.
  Penultimately, it is not right to attack management. I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who chairs the Select Committee, that many managers do a good job. I was in Harrogate hospital at a conference recently. They are doing an excellent job in managing that trust. It is not the managers who are the problem, but the systems that we have imposed. I agree with her and the hon. Member for Peckham that it is the bureaucracy that we have introduced that is debilitating all the players.
  Lastly, the NHS performance indicators will be published next week. There will no doubt be great trumpeting from the Government that they all show that the NHS is performing better. However, the indicators are all related to time; none is related to the quality of care.
  The test of the NHS is not how many people are put through a certain number of beds in a certain number of days: it is the quality of care people have, whether they are in-patients or out-patients. All the statistics in the world showing that we are treating more people more quickly are of no use to anyone if the care is not of an ever higher quality. I hope that the Government understand that it is not the politicians who have the biggest cause to complain about the bureaucracy, but the patients and the people working for the NHS, and they do so because they want the money to go on patient care.
  6.39 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: As the general election approaches, debates on health care become ever more bemusing and intriguing. Opposition Members' speeches today have demonstrated all too well the increasing contradictions and anomalies in the Opposition's policies, which have been so well exploited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will probe further when he replies.
  I begin by deploring the fact that, at this time of year, the chairman of council of the British Medical Association seeks to provide emotive headlines at the BMA's annual conference. I had better declare an interest straight away, as the BMA is my trade union. The sort of language he has used, which is translated into the headlines we read, is reminiscent of the worst days of the old TUC conferences: "Health service heading for disaster"; "NHS sinking like the Titanic". Such headlines are not only singularly unhelpful—indeed, untrue—but totally out of keeping with the medical profession and all it stands for.
  The ethos of the medical profession is surely to reassure and to act in the best interests of patients. It must adapt to changing times, but in that adaptation and change, must assist, with the prime object always in view—the welfare of the patients it is looking after.

  389
  When on earth were there not politicians bemoaning chaos and crisis in the NHS, combined with limited resources? "Underfunding" is an emotive left-wing word which has got into the Opposition's vocabulary as a cover-all description which completely fudges everything that we are in politics for—to make decisions about priorities, within limited resources. It is nonsense to talk about underfunding.
  Our job here, on whichever side of the House we sit, is to decide where best we can use the taxpayers' money. It is a fundamental naivety for the Opposition always to go on about underfunding, when we should be talking about efficiency and patient care.
  Mr. Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the NHS is underfunded?
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I certainly do not. The hon. Gentleman has not been following my train of thought. In an ideal world, every Secretary of State would have an unlimited budget, and the world would be a lot better for that. But that is not the sort of Utopia in which we live. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. I welcome the fact that his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench increasingly recognise that, and are beginning to see the realities of life. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining that club in due course.
  After all, Nye Bevan himself wholly failed, in all his admirable work in setting up the NHS, with all-party backing—the Conservative and Liberal parties, Beveridge, all worked together in the all-party tradition to set up the NHS—[Interruption.] If anyone disagrees, they have only to read the history books. I will send them the bumf whenever they like.
  But in setting up the NHS, Nye Bevan himself wholly failed to recognise the infinite demand which would result thereafter. He thought that ill health would, to coin a phrase, at a stroke be eradicable, that everyone would be cured instantly, and that people thereafter would not become ill. I forgive him for that. He could not possibly have foretold the developments in medical technology and so on, which have now opened unforeseen areas of expertise for the benefit of patients and populations.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Without getting into a debate about Nye Bevan, I have one factual point to make. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deny that, in the 1945–50 Parliament, the Labour and Liberal parties voted for the NHS legislation, and the Tory party voted against it.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I said that I was perfectly prepared to send hon. Members the exact basis on which the Conservative party did that. But the hon. Gentleman, being a fair-minded man, will acknowledge that the Conservative party had a considerable input in the setting up of the NHS. We go back to 1911 and Lloyd George. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happier now that I have mentioned Lloyd George.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the workings of this place are such that, for bizarre reasons, particular parties go into particular Lobbies, and then the reasons are dissected. We all know the truth. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members will
  390
  acknowledge the Conservative party's input. However, I give Nye Bevan the credit for getting the NHS legislation on to the statute book.
  The perfect must never be the enemy of the good. One of the uncomfortable messages we must all address on a non-party political basis is well set out in a leading article in this week's British Medical Journal. I was critical about that publication earlier this week, so I had better be polite about it today. The article, headed "Rationing health care: moving the debate forward", says:
  "In Britain neither the Government nor the main opposition party will openly acknowledge the inevitability of rationing health care."
  That is at the nub of every debate that we have about health care. Commentators believe that the Government should lead a debate on how best to ration health care. We are talking not about whether one should or should not ration health care, but about how best to do it. Anyone who says otherwise is living in the Utopian world to which I referred earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).
  The article continues:
  "Many people in the health service think that more funds should be available for health care, and many members of the public support such a proposal. But these are separate debates. More effectiveness and more money will not"—
  I repeat, not—
  "remove the need to deny effective treatments."
  In other words, to go back to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, however much money one has, the resources will never be available to give effective treatment to all patients regardless of need. That is an entirely non-political argument.
  Five years on from the NHS reforms, it is an appropriate time to take stock. Having spent most of my career in the NHS, I have had ample opportunity to see bureaucray at first hand, and bureacracy is the subject of the motion today. I have seen the appallingly long waiting lists for admission, the inadequate administration of case notes, the lack of a proper appointment system in out-patient departments with either no appointment system at all or multiple bookings, and the lack of liaison with investigation results coming back after patients have been seen.
  On top of all that—I say this with humility about my profession—all too often in the past, superimposed upon all those inadequacies has been an air of condescension and old-fashioned paternalism which suits this day and age particularly badly. Any reform which helps to remedy some of those problems, and which the Government have been so conspicuously successful in achieving, is warmly to be welcomed—I imagine, on both sides of the House.
  Where do we go from here? I believe that the Government's record stands up to the closest scrutiny. I welcome the shift from secondary care to primary care, with all that that involves for GPs and their close involvement with patients. I want to quote a letter sent to all Members of this House from the BMA, dated 2 November of last year:
  "The Government's reforms offer improved services to patients, both in quality and range".
  Of course, resources must mirror these changes-although they are not infinite. I certainly hope that GPs' careers will be further enhanced; likewise their job and clinical satisfaction.

  391
  There is no district general hospital in my constituency, but the borough of Merton's is arguably the best served population in the country, in that it contains three superb district general hospitals which serve my constituency: St. George's Hospital NHS trust, Kingston Hospital NHS trust and St. Helier Hospital NHS trust. I keep in close touch with all of them to find out how they are dealing with the Government's reforms, particularly in respect of bureaucracy.
  The St. George's Hospital trust warmly welcomes the efficiency scrutiny exercise now under way, and believes that it will offer scope to allow the hospital to reduce administrative effort—for instance, in invoicing each month, as mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee. The hospital will also be able to simplify contract payments with purchasers and to reduce the need for pre-authorisation from purchasers. That will lead to reduced bureaucracy in the internal market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and I would do anything to reduce the bureaucracy that inevitably arises during any administrative change. The fact that St. George's is reacting so positively to the initiative is a good omen for the future.
  The hospital has already speeded up communications within the trust by using e-mail technology. It has developed an integrated information support scheme that speeds up patient results to doctors, reduces the time spent chasing medical records and generally reduces bureaucracy and paper chasing, thereby allowing more time for hands-on patient care. It is important to eliminate the sort of problems which I said at the beginning I had seen at first hand.
  Information links to GP practices have been greatly enhanced, allowing laboratory and radiology results to be passed on quickly and permitting GPs' letters and discharge statements to be electronically mailed. This, too, will alleviate the old problem of time spent chasing paper. I believe that all hon. Members would endorse such an objective.
  I tried earlier to intervene on the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) while she was waxing lyrical about the bureaucracy surrounding fundholding practices. The House will have noted that she declined to give way, despite my trying to intervene several times. I have specific examples that rebut what she alleged is happening to increasing numbers of GP fundholders.
  The Kingston Hospital trust document explains exactly what I mean. It has set up a so-called GP multi-fund, which, although it consists of about 40 practices, enables the hospital to deal with a single management group. I do not know whether that pattern is followed around the country; if not, it should be, because it is eminently sensible. I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will visit Kingston hospital and find out at first hand how well the system is working—instead of waffling on about thousands of GP fundholding practices and the bumf that she says they generate. It simply does not work like that.
  Kingston is also talking to the district health authority and to the multi-fund group about providing electronic data transfer between GPs and the hospital, thereby reducing administrative costs. The hospital's management structure is flat, with authority and responsibility delegated close to the point of patient contact.
  392
  Kingston Hospital trust is set to achieve the target of management cost savings of 5 per cent., a reduction of more than £150,000. It is all very well to swap insults across the Floor of the House, but it is more sensible to look at the figures and see what is actually happening.
  The same good developments are to be found at St. Helier NHS trust and at Queen Mary's NHS trust in Roehampton, which also serves a few people from my constituency. Furthermore, I have good news about the Nelson hospital—one of the old cottage-type hospitals which had been virtually condemned to closure. Thanks to efforts at local and national level, it will now have a future, providing the Labour-controlled council is co-operative, offering enhanced day care facilities, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and radiology—all in the heart of my constituency: a most welcome development.
  I pay tribute to the community health council in my constituency. My first contact with such councils was in Islington, where I was the prospective parliamentary candidate in 1979. I do not know whether things have changed in Islington, in line with the change of attitude represented by the Leader of the Opposition, but at the time its CHC was a politically motivated left-wing pressure group. Nevertheless I pay tribute to the community health council in my area, which could not be less politically motivated. I have not the slightest idea of the politics of those who serve on it, whom I meet regularly and who offer a uniformly constructive and helpful analysis of what is going on. I congratulate them on that.
  The Secretary of State extolled the virtues of removing unnecessary tiers of administration throughout the NHS. I vividly remember the time I sat in the office of the chief executive of the South-West Thames regional health authority, in Paddington. On the wall was an idiotic map, showing his area of responsibility, stretching from Wandsworth to the south coast of Sussex. At the time, my elder son was a patient in an NHS Chichester hospital. I could discern nothing—apart from excellent medical care—linking Paddington, Wandsworth and the southern reaches of Sussex, however. It was ludicrous, and it just showed what a good idea it was to abolish the regional health authorities and put in hand the subsequent reorganisation.
  Not only has Merton and Sutton health authority merged with the local family planning committee; we have gone further and merged the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority with the family planning committee. That will lead to financial savings, and give my constituents a much better service.
  I do not want my speech to be a litany of good news and congratulations for the Government. There have been problems in my constituency—in fact, I am surprised that Labour Members have not intervened in this regard. For example, there has been national publicity about accident and emergency facilities at St. Helier hospital, which serves my constituents who live in the southern part of the borough. I have had regular meetings with the management of St. Helier hospital, and I have every confidence that it will tackle what is an uncomfortable situation—patients have been left, inappropriately, in corridors. That is unacceptable.
  The management at St. Helier hospital has told me that the main problem is the phenomenon known as bed blocking—I suppose that we will get used to the term.

  393
  Apparently, "bed blocking" means that patients who are perfectly fit to be discharged from hospital do not have the facilities to be so discharged and thus take up beds that could be used for emergency admissions. This is unacceptable.
  I offer my hon. Friend the Minister a radical solution to the problem—I do not know how receptive he is to radical solutions. If he is in a tier-abolishing and streamlining mood, he might examine the merits of looking at the roles of the community NHS trusts in relation to local authority social service departments to see whether the liaison between the two is good enough. If it is not, would he consider talking to his colleague in the Department of Social Security? There could be scope for further amalgamations and abolitions of tiers.
  The Labour party is coy about its plans for the future. I do not wish to jeopardise the hon. Member for Peckham's chances of re-election to the Labour shadow Cabinet—if such an election takes place—but some of the semantics we heard from her today were quite extraordinary. She was asked whether fundholding will be abolished, or whether it will re-emerge as general practitioner commissioning.
  If the Labour party believes in choice and diversity, will it say whether new Labour believes in a mixed economy in health care? The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) is shaking her head—but I do not know whether it is in response to my argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Mc Leish) will clarify the situation in winding up.
  The former research director of the Fabian Society, Stephen Pollard, stated:
  "For Labour to put forward a credible social and economic policy—with specific costings for healthcare—it should examine the approach adopted by its Socialist colleagues abroad and embrace the benefits that can be derived from an enhanced British independent healthcare sector."
  What is the Labour party's official view in that regard? Geoff Mulgan, the director of Demos, stated:
  "Mutual help can fill the gaps in provision of everything from money, to food shops and housing."
  Does the Labour party endorse a trend towards the great mutuals of the past and of the present, such as the John Lewis Partnership, the Co-op and BUPA? The Labour party should let the House and the country know its views in this regard.
  I was once a consultant to BUPA. When Frank Chapple was the general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, the union joined BUPA. He wanted to ensure that his members had the best possible health care available. I am not carping from a purist point of view, because, as a Conservative, I believe that everyone has the right to the best possible treatment available. If the general secretary of the EETPU chose to sign up all his members for private health care, well and good. I congratulate him, and I hope that they all benefited from it.
  As I said in an intervention, there has been a long tradition of the trade union movement looking after its members with private health care outside the national health service—I refer to the Manor House hospital and to the Benenden hospital, one of the largest independent hospitals in the country.
  394
  The Labour party's argument is riddled with hypocrisy, and it is about time it came clean and told us what it stands for and what its plans are for the future. Does it believe in a mixed economy in health care?
  In years to come, the most important thing will be getting value for money. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made a speech in this regard earlier in the week. The Times refers to his speech, and states:
  "If Labour won the general election there would be no unnecessary reorganisation in the NHS. He said also that he had no intention of pumping in more money until it had been established whether the present budget was being well spent."
  Hear, hear, to that. I wonder whether he has told the hon. Member for Peckham. Why should we look in a crystal ball when we can read the book? I have read the book according to the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Bayley: Sit down.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I shall conclude my speech—if hon. Members do not wish to intervene.
  I refer to a saying of Sir Richard Doll, which I used to have framed in my consulting room—I used to get my patients to read it. He is well known by hon. Members as one of the supreme epidemiologists—and he was suitably honoured in a recent honours list. He first came to prominence when he demonstrated the causal link between smoking and carcinoma bronchus. He said:
  "It is not for doctors to advise people to live their lives as invalids in order to die healthy."
  I suggest that the essence of Labour policy is to spread alarm among patients, when all the trends—while far from perfect—are for the better and in the interests of patients. I have the greatest confidence in the reforms proposed by the Government. They have been tackled in a practical and robust way. I suggest that the Labour party offers only uncertainty—and uncertainty is one of the worst things in this life. A patient, by definition, feels unwell, uneasy and uncertain. The last thing a patient wants is uncertainty about what the Labour party is going to do to the national health service, which we all value.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: The 10-minute limit on speeches now applies.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Don Touhig: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) spoke for about 27 minutes—but I do not know whether hon. Members are any wiser. We know that history is not his strong point because he spoke about the Tories supporting the foundation of the national health service. I wonder what Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the national health service, would say if he knew that this week the British Medical Association has said that the health service is being cut to the bone. No one should pretend that today's national health service is the one that Nye Bevan and the Labour party created. The task of providing health care is as great a challenge now as it has ever been. Health care systems across Europe face conflicting demands, from the political pressure to provide every citizen with better access to care to the need to keep costs at a level that the nation and its taxpayers are prepared to pay and can

  395
  afford. Added to that political juggling are the pressures of modern health care—the mounting costs of care, a general aging of the population, changing disease patterns, increased expectations and advances in medical science and technology.
  Health care in Europe has developed from the two basic models of a system of mandatory insurance supplemented by public funds and a universal system of state-funded health care. Rising public expectations set against the difficulties of financing health care inevitably lead us to examine how we fund health care, but that is a subject for another debate. Today, we are addressing the issue of bureaucracy in the health service.
  The task of providing an adequate health service for the next millennium is not an easy one. We need to consider carefully how we will rise to the challenge. The Government's response has been to increase bureaucracy and to pour resources into an ever-growing army of administrators, rather than into primary health care. That is not the way to meet the challenge. Bureaucracy has risen to ridiculous levels in the health service. In 1993–94, the Government put an extra £1.4 billion into the NHS and every penny went on bureaucracy, not on patient care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said earlier—she is not in her place at the moment—the health service now has 50,000 fewer nurses compared with 1989, but it has 20,000 extra managers. The cost of administering the NHS has increased from 9.2 per cent. of the total expenditure on the NHS to 15.6 per cent.
  While all that is happening, hospitals are refusing people who need treatment because of problems with funding. That is a scandal that cannot be tolerated in a civilised society on the eve of the new millennium, but it is being repeated across the country. I was in Hamburg recently and I learned about some initiatives that the German health service has taken to overcome the problems of meeting public aspirations for health care at the same time as controlling costs. The cost of some 25 per cent. of hospital procedures has been agreed between the Government, the medical profession and others by identifying diagnostic related groups. Those patient management categories have been negotiated between the hospital association and the insurance funds in all state hospitals to ensure quality and good care. It is intended that that practice will apply to 80 per cent. of hospital procedures.
  Meanwhile, the Government continue with their obsession to develop the market in the NHS, instead of balancing costs against expectations. That obsession means that young diabetics, in my county of Gwent, have to pay for special insulin syringes because the local hospital cannot afford the £4,000 yearly cost of the service. In my constituency, a group of local women provide a cancer advice surgery. Last year, the bulk of its funding came from the mayor's charity appeal and it operates from a portakabin in a car park behind the high street. The group is sustained by volunteers and they are doing the work that should be done by the NHS. Such gaps are all too common.
  Another reason why today's national health service is not the one that Bevan created is the element of commercialisation that has been allowed to sweep in like the incoming tide. While it might be appropriate to market-test for some services in a hospital—portering, catering and cleaning—it is not acceptable or effective to
  396
  privatise clinical services that directly affect patient care. Already sterile supplies, dental care, ophthalmology, pathology and pharmacy services have been handed to the private sector. Abortion services, psychology, speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy services have been market-tested as the inevitable consequence of an NHS that operates with a blind faith in market forces. No balance has been sought or achieved.
  The markets may do many things well, but left to themselves the markets will not educate our children, they will not provide the infrastructure that the country needs and they will not provide an acceptable level of health care for our people. Health care is not a product that can be packaged, marketed and sold by formula, at least not in a civilised society which, while valuing the individual, cares for the whole community. Health care is not simply an economic question of supply and demand: it has a human element that makes it unique. Health care is about curing the sick, relieving pain and caring for the young, old and infirm. For most of us, the possession of all the wealth in the world would be no substitute for good health. We must bear that unique element of health care in mind when we consider the subject of effective management.
  We need effective management in the NHS. We already have some good and effective managers in the NHS—some of the managers working in my area do a splendid job—but we do not need managers who are fixated on market testing and contracting out. The NHS needs skilled managers who can develop strategies and schemes, balance budgets and control costs properly, but who also appreciate that they run a unique service of health care. Those who are active and working in health care need to have a say in the management of the health service.
  I recommend to the House the United Kingdom nursing leadership programme, which is sponsored by Johnson and Johnson and the King's Fund. The programme seeks to tap into the unrealised potential of nurses to produce leaders who can make vital contributions to the development of health care. It operates over two years and nurses have a non-nurse, board-level mentor and undertake relevant secondments to improve their knowledge and skills. That break with the traditional career paths for nurses is to be applauded because it is one way in which experienced health care staff can move to board level, thus aiding their personal development and, most importantly, providing a much needed health care perspective at board level. We should welcome that major new learning opportunity.
  Nurse leaders will need to be strategists, environmentalists, slick political operators and confident leaders and they will need to show a sense of purpose. The programme will help them develop those skills. There is a need
  "for nurses to work with the whole system"
  so that they too are
  "stake-holders",
  and can contribute fully to the development of new approaches to health care.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Stakeholders!
  Mr. Touhig: The word "stake-holders" was a quotation from the programme set out by the King's Fund.

  397
  The rub is that the participants have to contribute £1,000 towards the cost of the programme. The Government are prepared to put £1.4 billion a year into the bureaucracy of health service, but they have not invested in that programme. They are concerned about bureaucracy and administration, but they are not concerned about the nurses—those at what my father would call "the coal face".
  The Secretary of State for Health, who is not in his place, said in February that the policy on the nurses' pay award was not for a 2 per cent. rise, but for locally negotiated pay. Why is it that, four months later, 75 per cent. of health trusts have failed to make deals with nurses on local pay? That is a disgrace.
  Hospitals are not oil companies, supermarkets or engineering firms and it is wrong to think that we can take managers from such backgrounds and expect them to provide effective health care. Obsessive political dogma mixed with blind faith in the markets is a potent medicine that produces privatisation—a prescription that will kill the national health service.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The debate so far has revealed confusion and empty platitudes from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on the Labour Front Bench. I shall identify three areas in which Government policy has been shown to work by setting a safety net below which nobody can fall. That is Conservative party policy and what we would want from the NHS.
  The first issue is the private finance initiative. There is a clear chasm between Labour Front Benchers, because the Leader of the Opposition supports the PFI but the hon. Member for Peckham has said again today that she thinks that the PFI is a recipe for the privatisation of the NHS. I shall refer also to trusts and, if I have time, to GP fundholding. I commend to the hon. Member for Peckham and to all Opposition Front-Bench Members the excellent book published by the Treasury entitled "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit", which explains the private finance initiative. It shows how the PFI acts to support the national health service—which is why the Leader of the Opposition has a different view from the shadow health spokesperson.
  According to page 9, more than 50 small schemes—that is, schemes under £10 million—are under development or are already in operation. They include waste incineration schemes for south Kent hospitals, a magnetic resonance imaging scanner for the Mid-Sussex NHS trust, a combined heat and power scheme for St. James's University Hospital NHS trust, dialysis services for South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS trust, the completion of negotiations for a concourse development for the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham, and a number of other projects that are under way in Scotland. They are examples of the PFI working for, and not against, the NHS. The PFI is providing additional resources for the NHS. I cannot understand why the hon. Lady disagrees with her leader and insists that the PFI be opposed.
  As to trusts, I find it incredible that Opposition Members continue to use what I call Mandelson alliterations. The latest one is "market madness". Far from
  398
  creating the market to which the hon. Lady referred, I believe that the trusts have created efficiency. That efficiency has not saved money for the Treasury, but provided better services for patients. That is good news. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) said earlier, every Government Department has limited resources and we must determine how best to use those resources.
  It is interesting to note that the Government have increased spending on the national health service by four times since 1979 and by £9.5 billion in the past few years. It is fascinating that the Labour party is not prepared to make a commitment this evening to similar increases in expenditure. We have heard only empty rhetoric from Labour Members.
  I recently visited the Staffordshire ambulance trust, which the National Audit Office has identified as having the best response rates of any ambulance trust in England and Wales. I congratulate the service—particularly the chief executive, Roger Thayne—on that achievement. The Staffordshire ambulance trust has introduced an interesting new concept that it developed partly from a computer package from San Diego. It is the first ambulance trust to apply the concept. Every nine seconds, the trust has updates on where its ambulances are located in Staffordshire. Instead of being in depots as in other ambulance trusts, Staffordshire ambulances are placed strategically around the county and thus are able to respond quickly to calls.
  That is the sort of innovative idea that can be introduced under local management. However, the Labour party derides local management. If Labour were to come to power, it would abolish local management, even though that provides the innovation which leads to better health care provision in Staffordshire.
  Mr. Purchase: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: No, I shall not give way, as I may speak for only 10 minutes.
  I pay tribute also to the Premier Health trust in Staffordshire—which is ably chaired by Mrs. Margaret Whalley—and to the chief executive, Dr. Diana Rawle, who recently replaced Mike Marchment. The trust is responsible for the Victoria hospital in Lichfield, which has expanded its facilities. At one time, it was thought that a major district general hospital should be built some distance away from Lichfield to serve the people of Lichfield. However, the Premier Health trust—under local management and working hand in glove with local doctors and nurses—has ensured that the Victoria hospital provides the services in Lichfield for the people of Lichfield.
  The hospital has a larger minor injuries unit, a new antenatal and maternity ward—which I opened recently—and increased facilities in the renal ward. There has been a rebuild of the in-patient facility, the rehabilitation department has been expanded and there are increased day surgery and out-patient services. Those facilities are available through the Premier Health trust, which owes its existence to so-called "market madness".
  As to GP fundholding, it was incredible to watch the hon. Member for Peckham wriggle on the end of her hook. She said that she would not abolish GP fundholding, but then she said that she would abolish it

  399
  and introduce in its place "contracting"—or some other Mandelson expression. At the end of the day, we need the managers, the market and, most importantly, the resources. [Interruption.] However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—who tries to intervene from a sedentary position—will not make any financial commitments.
  Today I received a fax from Dr. Simon Elsdon, who is based in Staffordshire. I spoke with him last night and he said that he is not obsessed with dogma regarding who owns hospitals or who employs doctors and consultants, so long as good, efficient health care is free at the point of delivery. That is what GP fundholding is all about.
  Labour Members are fond of using soundbites, but they have demonstrated today that they lack the ability to manage the economy or the health service. As with its education policy, Labour seeks not to push up health standards but to aggregate at the mediocre. Labour, through the abolition of the critical purchaser-provider divide, would destroy the expansion of hospitals such as the Victoria in Lichfield, or the expansion of the efficient Staffordshire ambulance service. Labour, through its abolition of fundholding, would emasculate general practitioners and thus weaken service provision to patients. Labour, through its opposition to the private finance initiative, would halt hospital building in its tracks.
  Labour, by not committing itself to extra funding in the NHS, is limited to empty rhetoric and alliterative Mandelson soundbites. Labour, through its adherence to dogma, is determined to set in concrete an outmoded and ill-planned structure that was designed before 1948. While the Government can take pride in the fact that we have quadrupled NHS resources and empowered doctors for the benefit and well-being of their patients, Labour merely offers surgery by soundbite.
  7.27 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: We have just heard 10 minutes of empty rhetoric and classic soundbites from the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I hope that he will listen while I tell him a little about life in the real world for those who depend on the national health service.
  I begin by paying tribute to the vast majority of NHS staff for their dedication, commitment and expertise. That is what has kept the national health service going, as it struggled against the impact of 17 years of Conservative Government policy. As a reward, the staff have been paid peanuts for providing vital health care. They have seen the privatisation of health care and they have watched while millions of pounds of public money was spent lining the pockets of the Tories' friends and creating more and more tiers of management.
  I wish to use the brief time available to me tonight to highlight what is occurring in the real world. I shall focus particularly on what is happening at my local district general hospital, the Queen Margaret Hospital NHS trust in west Fife. For months, patients, their relatives and the staff have told me how the trust's bureaucracy and its managerial approach have led to the early discharge of patients—particularly the frail elderly—a lack of information and to ever-longer waiting lists.
  I have raised my concerns with the chief executive and the health board. I have spent months listening to them saying, first, that I have not heard the full story; secondly,
  400
  that prompt action has been taken; and, thirdly, that the complaint that has been raised with me is not a common one. I have been willing to accept that, as a Member of Parliament, I tend to hear rather more complaints than praise, but I have reached the conclusion that I have used the procedures for too long, and it is time for me to make public my concerns about what NHS bureaucracy and the Government's policies, encouraged and promoted by Fife health board and the Queen Margaret Hospital NHS trust, have meant to my constituents.
  Let me outline a few of the examples that I had hoped to quote in more detail tonight. Until recently, the Queen Margaret hospital had four consultant radiologists, covering the whole of Fife. Even that is not enough to deal with the demand and provide a fully comprehensive service. But from August there will be only one full-time consultant radiologist, because the other three resigned in disgust at the managerial approach to radiology services, which they believe has resulted in a reduction in quality patient care. When I met the chief executive at the beginning of this month, he put the resignations down largely to personality conflicts. Yet, surprise, surprise, the consultants who are leaving have been snapped up by nearby hospitals.
  I quote what one of the consultants said in his letter of resignation:
  "When I first came to the Queen Margaret Hospital three years ago, like the rest of the staff at the hospital, I was excited by the new challenges, new equipment and the future potential of developing appropriate and top quality services to Fife patients. However, in the last three years I have seen this deteriorate to a point I find professionally and personally unworkable due to a style of management that has no concept of prevalent future roles in modern Radiology which puts balance sheets and outward appearance before patient care and staff requirements for working conditions."
  The problems in providing a radiology service became apparent to me during the past two years in complaints from constituents. I have raised the matter on more than one occasion with the hospital trust management, but as a direct result of its behaviour, the Government's policies and the behaviour of Fife health board, which is supposed to ensure that such services are provided, the people of Dunfermline and Fife as a whole will be without an essential quality service that affects many areas of diagnosis and treatment, including surgery. There is a national shortage of consultant radiologists, so what hope is there that patient services will be provided or restored?
  The second example of NHS bureaucracy and the Government's policies concerns a consultant ophthalmologist. As I said earlier, I have detected growing concerns for a considerable time, but it was difficult to get substantial evidence because patients and relatives were afraid to go public with their complaints in case they came back on them, and staff were afraid that if they spoke out they would be dismissed. A consultant ophthalmologist did speak out and he was dismissed, even though the vice-chairman of the trust said:
  "I should stress that Dr. Hunter's clinical competence has not at any time been at issue."
  Dr. Hunter was sacked because he dared to complain about the senior trust management. Is it any wonder that the people of west Fife have no faith in the hospital trust management?
  As well as the treatment of consultants, that approach has affected the whole staffing of the hospital. The House will not be surprised to learn that the ancillary staff,

  401
  who do such essential work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said earlier in an excellent point, have not only been subject to private contractors, who offer lower pay and worse conditions, but they were recently told that when their contracts come up for renewal in the autumn, the trust will not even bother to make an in-house bid. Yet this is the trust that spent time drawing up a reward package for itself and the people who supported it.
  Let me make it clear that the people of west Fife, indeed, Fife as a whole, never wanted trusts. They felt that the time and money involved could be better spent on providing patient care, but they have been landed with three of them. When they complain to me, they make it quite clear that they are not complaining about the vast majority of staff at the hospital. They blame the senior management and the Government for what is happening to patient care.
  I was going to quote a number of complaints, but I have time to quote from only one—a letter that I received from a lady last month. I shall quote extracts from it, as it is about the real world of NHS bureaucracy and the Government's policies. She said:
  "Dear Ms Squire,
  I am returning to work after three months' leave following major surgery … I was in Ward 19 … and was astonished to find on my arrival that I was sharing a room with two geriatrics and two patients awaiting eye surgery. I was told that Ward 10—the original Gynae ward—had been closed last year to make way for another Day Hospital ward. In the course of that week … as the continual battle for beds went on … lack of funds meant that the ward lacked a permanent charge nurse … On my sixth day, my consultant informed me that I would probably be allowed home three days later but that unfortunately I would have to be moved to another ward otherwise he would be unable to perform the next day's operations … On my return from the bathroom about 9.30 am, my bed had been stripped … and so I sat in a chair until I was finally moved downstairs to a short stay ward at 1.30 pm"—
  four hours later.
  "One of the other ladies moved was 78 years old and had been moved five times in a week! … In my opinion, there are too many 'people in suits' with no medical knowledge who put money before patients' welfare.
  My conclusion is that the Conservative Government is guilty of serious underfunding in health and, if it was not for the unstinting dedication of all professional and ancillary staff, the National Health Service would be moving ever more quickly into line with the substandard healthcare".
  Those words speak more powerfully than mine. I challenge the Government to conduct a full investigation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Porter: On one level, we should feel some sympathy for the Labour party, caught as it is on health policies with two faces, one of which is its more public soundbite, alarmist, shroud-waving face, which slams the Government at every opportunity; the other, its more private, supposedly honest, wishful-thinking-that-it-will-soon-be-in-power face, which has to recognise the fact that many Conservative reforms work,
  402
  are popular with many health care professionals and are more effectively spending more public money to deliver an ever-improving public service.
  What the Labour party is trying to do with its contortions of producing a credible alternative policy is to criticise the Conservatives and at the same time devise similar policies with other names. It cannot have it both ways. Even double-jointed contortionists cannot do that. We know that any health care policy must take account of the primary aim of the NHS: the appropriate and effective care of the people. It must then take account of the simultaneous relentless rise in public demand and expectation. Just witness hip replacements and cataract removals, which were unheard of just a few years ago but are now taken for granted as of right. It also must allow for developments in technology and changes in medical science and practice, including working practices. Then there is the ever-present reality of a finite resource, however much the economy grows. All that adds up to a complicated equation, and I think that it is a tribute to all professionals in the NHS and Conservative policies that we have such a success story with health in Great Britain.
  One of many benefits of the reforms has been a move towards more localised responses to local needs. Where there are high incidences of asthma or a more elderly population than average, for instance, we can deliver a more local health service—an LHS within the NHS. That brings me to some specific comments about my own area. I am entirely in favour of doing away with needless bureaucracy, but, to me, that also means not letting the NHS bureaucracy lay down a model for local delivery that fits the bureaucratic mind but is not in the best interests of local people. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and I fought hard to oppose the break-up of the former Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority, with the two halves going to Suffolk and east Norfolk. We lost that battle to the bureaucrats who advised the then Secretary of State.
  We fought the fight, both locally and in the House, because the district general hospital, the local community hospitals and the health authority were seen to be very much part of the community. Since then, we have moved into a new era—and there is the possibility of moving even further, cutting bureaucracy and putting more money into patient care.
  I have asked the authority to examine the set-up of the two health trusts that provide most health care in north Suffolk and east Norfolk. I am definitely not talking about a merger or takeover by the James Paget NHS trust, but a new trust—possibly called the Great Yarmouth and Waveney NHS trust—could be formed, and management costs of £1.5 million could be saved. I have asked for the money to be ring-fenced for the patients of Waveney and Great Yarmouth, rather than being reclaimed centrally. That has the potential for a creative and cost-beneficial reform of bureaucracy, although I recognise that some staff will not look kindly on further administrative changes.
  In general, over the years, my area has seen agreement across the parties and consensus about people's health needs, regardless of how we represent them at different levels. However, as the next election has been getting closer, there has been a good deal of scaremongering from my opponents. One piece of panic-raising has concerned care of the elderly—hospital beds for them, and the viability of the community hospitals at Lowestoft,

  403
  Beccles, Southwold and Halesworth. The introduction of eligibility criteria has given rise to fears among elderly people that continuing care will not be available when they need it. That fear has been fed by local Labour activists who, apparently, can measure a service only by bed numbers—even empty beds—and seem incapable of looking at the totality of the service.
  It is clear that the NHS has important responsibilities for arranging and funding care of people who require in-patient care under specialised clinical supervision in a hospital or nursing home in the voluntary or independent sector, but it must be funded by the NHS. Suffolk Health is closely monitoring the new eligibility criteria with a group of GPs, NHS providers, community health councils, carers and users. That is the local NHS at its best.
  Labour is right to draw attention to occasions when the service falls short of expected standards, but it has neither told us what it would do if given a chance nor cited any of the thousands of daily success stories involving people living longer, more fulfilled lives thanks to our NHS, with waiting lists declining in Suffolk as elsewhere, more positive patient outcomes and the achievement of patients charter standards. I congratulate Suffolk health authority, and its chairman Joanna Spicer in particular. I also congratulate James Paget hospital and the Anglian Harbours trust on all that they have achieved, and express my confidence in what they will achieve in the future.
  I do not expect members of the Opposition Front-Bench team to be interested in putting their views into perspective by reference to Suffolk, but I did expect their national account to reflect a more accurate picture, to support the health service and to tell us more of their own plans so that the public could consider them. All that we heard was, "Labour will renew the NHS." The Labour party should wake up to the fact that the NHS has been renewed during the past 15 years.
  Health care in north Suffolk and east Norfolk has been transformed during the lifetime of the present Government. I know, because I use the service a good deal: I do not speak only as a politician. I use it perhaps more than the average amount, given that I have four children and a condition in my feet that is health care intensive. The service that I use is good and deserves to be commended, even as we seek to improve it further.
  Mr. McLeish: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I brighten up the proceedings—I hope that Conservative Members will agree about that—by informing the House that England is winning one-nil as a result of a goal by Shearer? As a Scot, I am quite glad to raise that in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I am happy to allow it.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I do not know whether you have heard the rugby results, Mr. Deputy Speaker. England is playing Wales tonight.
  I am pleased to have been called, even on a day on which we should all be watching television, if not actually at Wembley. The debate is important. The motion concerns the way in which the Government have run down the NHS, and the way in which bureaucracy is choking the service. The position in my constituency is
  404
  no different from that anywhere else. We now have 429 trusts, all with chief executives and board members, and all producing minutes stamped "Private and Confidential". In some hospitals, people have as much chance of meeting an auditor or accountant as of meeting a consultant—and the consultant is likely to be from Coopers and Lybrand, and nothing to do with medicine.
  Reference has been made to the private finance initiative. So far, in my constituency, the PFI has produced a good deal of paper and a good deal of money for consultants and solicitors, but no new building. The same is true throughout the country. There are no big schemes, and in Carlisle the PFI has delayed a scheme by three years. That means that we are unlikely to get 474 beds for a new hospital—a figure decided not just by medical consultants in the hospital but by the previous chief executive of the Carlisle Hospitals NHS trust, Mr. Clive Moth. I think it only right to say something about Mr. Moth's unexpected departure from the trust. On 3 May this year, the trust suddenly issued a short press release saying that he was taking early retirement. When pressed on whether he would serve his full notice, the trust told us that he had already cleared his desk and left.
  Mr. Moth was a crucial figure in the PFI scheme. He was negotiating with the Treasury, with AMEC, the only company involved in the bid—there was no competition—and with the Department of Health. No one in my constituency believes that he took voluntary early retirement: that is a fairy tale put about by the trust, which does no credit to the trust or its chairman. The truth is slowly starting to come out, however. It appears that Mr. Moth was not anxious to reduce the number of beds in the new development, or to reach a deal for the trust that would mean that it would not be able to afford to pay the rental in the future. He was not prepared to accept that the rent would be paid while patients would have to be: turned away, so he had to go. We do not know whether he was forced out by AMEC or the Government; it could have been a combination of the two.
  Miraculously, the Government just happened to have a spare civil servant to take Mr. Moth's place—a Mr. Peter Johnson. Mr. Johnson, a former Whitehall civil servant, had been sent north to arrange for hospitals to become trusts, and had done a good deal of work on the PFI in recent years. However, he had no experience of running hospitals in the recent past, if at all. I understand that he will do this last task for the NHS before retiring.
  The football situation seems to be getting worse. I understand that the score is now one-one.
  Mr. Johnson was given the task of putting the PFI through at all costs. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me whether the acting chief executive is on performance-related pay, and, if he is, what the target is. Is it to get the deal signed and the PFI hospital built? No other hospitals are currently being built. Can the Minister confirm that the Carlisle Hospitals NHS trust has a deficit of between £500,000 and £1 million? If so, will that mean redundancies?
  The PFI scheme was originally part new build and part refurbishment. I understand there has been a departure from that specification and that the contractor, AMEC, is suggesting that it should build additional accommodation and take the central tower block, which was going to be refurbished. It is 30 years old but still in reasonably good condition. There are fears in my constituency that AMEC

  405
  will use the tower block for a hospital—it was designed for that purpose. We could end up with a private hospital right in the middle of the infirmary, which is not wanted by my constituents.
  On 3 June, the hospital's medical staff committee unanimously passed a resolution that it would not accept fewer than 474 beds and that, if the trust accepted the contractor's proposal, the staff would not work with the trust. If PFI provides 474 beds and the trust can afford the project, it should go ahead—we have been waiting more than 20 years. If that is not the case, I am assured that in the past the Government have provided public money if a PFI scheme has not come off.
  When I intervened on the Secretary of State, I said that things have changed since 1977, when Cumbria had one area health authority. The Secretary of State was wrong to say that there were district health authorities, but there were family practitioner committees. Cumbria's health authority had one paid member—and I declare an interest, because that person was me. I received £2,000 a year, which is equivalent to £6,600 today. I thought that I was most fortunate and it was a great privilege to chair that authority. Today, Cumbria has two health authorities and seven trusts. Each chair receives £17,000 a year and each non-executive member receives £5,000 a year. The total cost exceeds £330,000, which could be spent on patient care. The Government say that the number of regional health authorities has fallen, but if one adds them to the number of trusts, they total 529 quangos. Their chairmen each receives an average of £17,000 a year and the 2,645 non-executive directors each receives £5,000. Therefore, it costs £22 million to service the quangos with the Government's place persons. Cumbria does not need all those trusts. The ambulance trust is nonsense, and Carlisle has a community trust and a hospital trust when only one is needed.
  I suggest to Labour Front Benchers that if those organisations are to be retained, their chairs should be paid a small salary—£6,600, equivalent to that paid in 1977—and the board members should receive compensation for loss of earnings and expenses. Those boards have brought no benefits to the NHS and the quality of the people who serve on them is no better than when I served on a health authority in the 1970s and 1980s. The big difference is that some people who served on boards in those days were known because they had been before the electorate and had won elections, so they were locally accountable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.53 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: When I know that the House is to debate the health service, I always read what the British Medical Association has to say before I prepare my speech. One can always rely on the BMA to spread alarm and despondency. Sometimes, I think that BMA should stand for Boundless Misery Alliance. The BMA has attacked every Government reform ferociously and has portrayed every advance as a retreat. As generic prescribing, fundholding and trusts have been introduced over the years, the BMA has fought
  406
  them tooth and claw. As time passes, the association realises how good are those reforms and its objections gradually peter out. Then the BMA says, "If there is the catastrophe of a Labour Government, we hope to heaven that they will not alter Conservative reforms."
  The BMA only grudgingly acknowledges the ever-increasing amount of money allocated to the NHS and the extraordinary advances in expert treatments. Of course those advances are due to the cleverness of medical practitioners, but they also mean that the NHS has to find a great deal more money to fund them.
  The leader in this week's British Medical Journal calls for a debate on rationing health care. It states that
  "governments should come clean with the public and lead a debate on how best to ration health care"
  and that neither the Government nor the Opposition face the facts. The leader continues:
  "Most commentators accept that rationing is inevitable, but the debate keeps returning to this point because the politicians refuse to acknowledge it."
  The word "rationing" is totally inappropriate in this context because it conjures up visions of hard-faced bureaucrats producing ration books, tearing out coupons every time someone visits a doctor, dentist, chemist or optometrist and saying, "You can't have an appendectomy, a hip replacement or a baby because you have used all your tickets."
  I checked three different dictionaries for definitions of rationing in the Library. One was a
  "fixed daily allowance of food served out for man or animal".
  That has nothing to do with health care. Chambers dictionary defines rationing as a
  "fixed allowance or portion, especially of food".
  The Oxford dictionary defines rationing as a
  "fixed allowance or individual share of provisions … daily allowance of food allotted to each officer or man."
  It even mentions a ration of one pound of bread and three quarters of a pound of meat, and refers to an officially limited allowance for civilians in time of war. That has nothing to do with the problems facing health care.
  Opposition Members should understand that the BMA is blaming them as much as us. The association says that neither party has the guts to debate the most important matter in health care today—rationing.
  The British Medical Journal acknowledges that doctors have always judged whether a particular patient should receive certain treatment. There is nothing new about that. Suddenly, it has to be called rationing and there is a big public debate. The leader blows the gaff later. It states:
  "We use rationing as a summary term to describe the process of choosing between beneficial services. We have adopted this term because it provokes the greatest public controversy."
  In other words, it is all about frightening the horses. I wonder whether the BMA wants Government decrees on which patients should receive expensive drugs, whether smokers should receive cancer treatment, whether drinkers should be given liver transplants and whether there should be an age cut-off for any treatment. Surely those must be medical decisions. The BMA is totally on the wrong track. How can such decisions ever be taken by Government, or even by public agreement? The Government cannot decide whether or to what extent a patient might benefit from a particular treatment.

  407
  There might be a case for decreeing that fertility treatment for women over 55, for example, should not be allowed. Others might say that it is madness to spend millions of pounds on aborting babies, then spend further millions of pounds on enabling women who cannot have babies to have them. I can imagine the howls of rage from the BMA and from the medical profession if the House tried to lay down rules on those matters.
  The BMJ article does not finish there. It goes on to state:
  "The British Government likes to suggest that the drive for effectiveness will obviate the need for rationing."
  I have never heard one Minister say any such thing in any speech, and I have never seen such a statement in writing.
  Let us be clear about what the BMA is asking. I understand the BMA's position if it is suggesting that GPs should not be called out on trivial matters or that ambulances should not be called out—as many are—on very trivial matters when people could manage perfectly well to take themselves to hospital. However, this week's call from the BMA to demand that we have a great national debate on rationing is wrong.
  It is right that we ask the public to regard the health service with some sensitivity, to recognise that we should not call out a doctor if one is not needed and that we should not call an ambulance if it is possible to get to hospital without one. That is not what the BMA is saying, and we should be absolutely clear about that.
  Moreover, to help us in our deliberations, the BMA produced a paper for this very debate today. It is a parliamentary brief on bureaucracy and patient care. In that paper, the BMA states that there is
  "a huge duplication of administrative effort",
  but it does not describe that duplication. Of much more relevance, the paper states that a scrutiny team's report on administrative overweighting, produced in July, was welcomed by the Government, and its recommendations will be implemented by December this year. Simpler claim forms will be in place by next Monday. The BMA is therefore saying in this briefing paper that the issues that the BMA has raised with the Government on bureaucracy and overmanning have been well addressed.
  The paper speaks of the turmoil in public district health departments because of the Government's initiative to reduce management costs. I point out to Labour Members that they cannot accuse us of doing nothing when the BMA has itself made it clear that we are doing something.
  I realise that all hon. Members have an extremely short time to speak in this debate, and that others have still to speak, but any hon. Member who thinks that any Government of any colour will be able immediately to address every medical need as it arises—such as a preferred doctor or hospital—is living in cloud cuckoo land. Our record on health care is very good, and I support it all the way.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I do not know how to follow that speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I shall take you back almost a year—to 3 July 1995—when there was a debate in the House on the national health service. I made a speech in that debate, in which I told the House about a primary health care centre
  408
  in my constituency. Actually it was not "in" my constituency—but it was scheduled to be built in my constituency.
  I told the House about how that project—which had been promised several years previously and talked about for many years before that—had not yet been started. The first reason was that—as a result of the market mechanism imposed by the Government on the NHS—none of the trusts could decide which of them had the responsibility to build that primary health care centre.
  We had also been told by the then regional health authority—the West Midlands regional health authority, which was particularly popular with the Government—that the capital had been made available. However, last year, I was told that there would be a further delay in building the primary health care centre because—although the capital had been earmarked some years before, and the problem of who had the responsibility to co-ordinate its building had been overcome—the project had to be financed through the PFI. I was assured that matters would still be all right. I was assured that all the tenders would be in by last October, a business case would approved, and that matters would be well in train by this year. That is the problem.
  The first stone has not been laid in the primary health care centre. As late as last January, I was still being told by the health trust and by managers that the project was on track. However, a couple of weeks ago, it transpired that the health care centre will be delayed yet again. Why is that? It has been discovered that the PFI—which is much vaunted by the Government—cannot produce the goods for it. Two years after the capital was allocated, the project was delayed because of market operation. It was then put through this ridiculous mechanism, the PFI, which did not work in the first place.
  I shall quote from a letter that I received from the developers of that site—called Rubery Hollymoor—who put in a bid and have now found that their bid is unacceptable. They said:
  "You will be aware that the assessment criteria for PFI schemes are constantly changing and without a clear direction many consortia involved in healthcare projects are becoming increasingly frustrated. Our consortium alone have expended approximately £100,000 in abortive costs on this relatively small scheme.
  The sad fact is that unless public sector funding can be secured for this project in the very near future, the local community will not have the benefit of the planned facility for several years."
  They enclosed a copy of their most recent letter to the trust.
  The fact is that something that was promised some years ago has still not been built, and it is now in question. I ask the Minister whether he will now guarantee that the finance and capital that was promised all those years ago will be made available. He may say that he cannot answer that question without some notice, but last week in Health questions I asked this Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam)—that very question. I asked him whether it is fair that local people should be denied facilities that they have been promised because of a scheme that they did not invent or ask for, but which the Government have imposed on them.
  I am glad that the Minister is in the Chamber today. In reply to my question last week, he told me:
  "I do not know the particular scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall look into it. None the less, the PFI is accelerating the process. We are breaking out of the traditional system whereby

  409
  everybody has to wait for the Treasury—waiting for Godot, one might say. If the scheme is good, provides value for money, and the risk is properly apportioned, it can obtain private sector finance. We are talking about a new era for hospital building in Britain, yet we still do not know what the Opposition think about it."—[Official Report, 18 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 678.]
  I will tell the Minister what I think about it. I am all in favour of trying to attract private finance when it speeds matters up, when it helps and when it is additional. I am not in favour—I do not know anyone who is, apart from Conservative Members—of schemes that delay the process, cost the private sector thousands of pounds and destroy their confidence, or that end up requiring public funds but with question marks over a capital budget that was supposedly already there.
  In his reply, will the Minister for Health tell the House what that scheme and other PFI schemes have cost the NHS in bureaucratic costs, paperwork and preparation? What have they cost the private sector? Will he give a guarantee—no ifs, no buts and no plans—that that primary health care centre, which has been demanded by the people of Longbridge and promised to them, will be built next year? If he cannot give that guarantee, the private finance initiative, in the way that it is operated by the Government, will be shown up for the sham that it really is.
  I want to touch on one other area that also concerns primary care—community services. For too long, that has been the Cinderella service of the NHS. Time and again, Ministers tell us that waiting times are coming down. I acknowledge that, in parts of the acute sector, waiting times have come down, but why do Ministers never give all the figures for all the services provided by the NHS? Why are they rather vague when they talk about community services?
  In my constituency, a little five-year-old boy called Matthew Kelsall has been on the waiting list in Birmingham for occupational therapy since May 1995. His mother was told that he would probably be seen in July this year. She has now been told—after pressure from me—that an action plan is being drawn up to improve services and to tackle the waiting list. The result of that action plan is that Matthew is not likely to be seen until December. I may not be very good at sums, but I think that that is a rather longer wait than was originally promised.
  That is the operation of the market. It is the way that the health service is being treated by the Government. Community services—the services that are less visible and so do not catch the headlines—suffer time and again. When will the Government come clean and admit that they have not properly funded the waiting list initiative? When will they come clean and admit that they have funded it by borrowing against the future and borrowing from general practitioner underspends? There is no continuing commitment to fund the waiting list initiative.
  At the end of the waiting list initiative, when waiting lists are, perhaps, down a little more, how will the Government maintain that improvement? Will they put in the necessary money? Is so, where will it come from? Or will they allow waiting lists to rise again? If they do put the money in, will it be taken from other parts of the NHS? Will it once again be dragged away from community services, family health care services and so on? The public have a right to know.
  The Government have trumpeted their so-called waiting list initiative, but the public should know the full truth about what will happen to it. They have a right to the
  410
  community services that they require. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the NHS is now led by primary health care. Despite the best efforts of the staff who work in primary health services and in community services—the front-line staff and the managers—the circumstances under which they operate, the market mechanism and the way that resources are being diverted away from primary health services give the lie to the Minister's claim. They and the House have a right to expect straight answers from the Government.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I welcome the opportunity that the Opposition have provided today for a debate on health. There needs to be a serious debate on the dilemma, which all future Governments will increasingly face, of an almost limitless demand for new health provision, following more and more innovations, and the limited resources available. Unfortunately, the Opposition have ducked that debate. Instead, they have reduced the level of discussion to party political point scoring. That is a great pity, because that debate should take place.
  The Opposition want to talk about all the things that they can find wrong with the national health service as well as a great many things that they cannot find wrong, but which they invent. The most obvious recent ploy has been to talk about bureaucracy because they think that will go down well with the public. The reality is that if they stripped out dozens of administrators, either it would be impossible to obtain an efficient use of resources or the clinicians would end up doing administrative tasks when they should be looking after patients.
  The Government have been tackling the whole issue of bureaucracy, to try to keep it to a minimum. They have introduced a whole series of initiatives over the past few years: the abolition of the 12 regional health authorities—a whole tier of administration taken away, but a move that the Opposition opposed—the joining together of district health authorities and family health services authorities; the reduction in the number of health authorities in Wales; the requirement for a 5 per cent. reduction in administrative costs across the board; as well as the efficiency scrutiny teams that have quite literally cut out millions of forms. In my area, the Bromley Hospitals trust has saved £350,000 by streamlining its management operations through natural wastage, without affecting either clinical standards or staffing. It has done away with two director level posts to gain the greatest efficiency from the minimum number of administrators. That is the reality on bureaucracy.
  I want to deal with a few of the issues that are of concern to real people. First, there is the issue of waiting lists. There have been waiting lists ever since the NHS started, but, quite naturally, patients want them to be kept to the minimum. That is precisely what the Government have achieved. Waiting lists have been reduced to their lowest-ever level. In fact, the last figures that I saw showed that the number of patients waiting more than a year for an operation had fallen to only 4,000—the lowest level since 1948. They also showed that 50 per cent. of all patients are treated immediately, a further 50 per cent. of the remainder are treated within five weeks and 75 per cent. of the remainder within three months. In my area, Bromley Hospitals trust has reduced to zero the number of patients who wait for more than one year and its overall waiting list has come down by 25 per cent.

  411
  Secondly, all areas have benefited from new facilities during the past few years, not least the area that I represent. However, we are badly in need of a new acute hospital, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well. The advance plan for a new acute hospital has reached the PFI stage and three tenders are expected by the end of July, with a firm business plan by October and a financial agreement by the end of the year. I hope soon to see the plan set in bricks and mortar.
  That is being provided on top of the significant investment that has already been made—for example, a new day treatment unit that has resulted in a 25 per cent. increase in day cases. I visited the unit after it opened in March. It is an excellent unit that has been warmly welcomed by both clinicians and patients. At the local community hospital in Orpington, my hon. Friend the Minister's constituency, there has been a £2.4 million investment to upgrade its services. Last year in Beckenham, my constituency, £1 million was spent on new facilities for local people—a minor treatment unit, new diagnostics, a paediatric clinic, community health facilities, education and so on. All those have brought great benefit to local people. In May, there was a 16 per cent. increase over last year in patients being treated.
  Thirdly, there were problems with accident and emergency facilities earlier this year, especially in January when there was an unprecedented level of demand. Like other health authorities, Bromley has taken firm action to deal with the problem. Between last September and March, waiting time in Bromley hospitals has been reduced by a third. In Bromley hospital itself, where the A and E unit is located, there have been a number of major innovations—a new consultant; minor treatment facilities that screen out people who do not need major A and E attention, which makes the system more efficient; two new wards; some specialised beds to look after people with the most serious illnesses and injuries; and a new observation ward. So major work has been done that matches investment into the three next nearest accident and emergency hospitals, all of which have benefited in the past year by investments of £1 million or more.
  At Bromley hospital, £1.26 million will be spent on new investment this year and about £900,000 in the following year—all to improve the accident and emergency facilities. I am very happy that that problem, which should not have occurred but did, has been swiftly dealt with, the necessary money has been provided and the necessary investment has been carried out. I am sure that that is already delivering great benefits.
  Developing and widening primary care is of the essence. I am delighted with the Government's approach to that—part of which, of course, is the extremely beneficial GP fundholding scheme. The widening of the scope of GPs' provision will not only satisfy patients, who would prefer services to be available from the GP whom they know, trust and can get on with easily and to whom access is easy, but take pressure off hospitals. It will take pressure off A and E departments because minor injuries can be handled by the GP, off consultancy services because they can sometimes be provided at the GP's clinic, and off diagnostics because, although much of it has traditionally taken place in hospitals, it can now be carried out by GPs.
  It is time that the great advances that have been made in the NHS and the great benefits of the Government's reforms were properly recognised. It is time that the
  412
  Opposition paid proper tribute to the teamwork between clinicians and administrators who, by working together, are essential to the many excellent facilities and success stories in the NHS—they exist, whatever the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) may think. Most important, it is time that the Opposition stopped the point scoring, the double think and the double talk, and recognised the reality of the excellent NHS and the extent to which it has improved as a result of the Government's reforms.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I want to use this debate to raise two local issues that are causing great concern in the Coventry area. They are, first, the impact of the Government's policy, including the private finance initiative, on the hospital services in the city, and secondly, if I get time, health inequalities.
  The Secretary of State said that the PFI had freed the national health service from short-term capital restrictions. Actually, what has been achieved is nothing other than delay. In 1987, Walsgrave hospital, the biggest hospital in the Coventry area, was identified as in urgent need of capital repairs. It is a 1960s building that looks fine from the outside, but, as hon. Members know, buildings built in that period cause some grave concerns. The hospital was in the queue for £20 million, but reorganisation by the Government, who insisted that there was far too much inefficiency in the NHS and intended to sort it out, put that capital allocation on hold, and the much needed work was not done.
  We in the area were then told that, if the hospital applied for trust status, we would get the required capital. Walsgrave hospital did exactly that, and became a trust in the second wave. We cleared all the hurdles right up to political clearance at ministerial level for a £30 million capital allocation that was needed by the hospital. Then the Government changed the rules again and said that all capital must be referred to the PFI. Again, the capital allocation was cancelled.
  Many good news stories have been generated during the process. We heard, "Good news—Walsgrave is in for a £30 million bid." Halfway through the PFI process, we heard, "Good news—Walsgrave is in for a £50 million bid." Now that we are down to one preferred operator, we hear, "Good news—Walsgrave is in for a £100 million bid." The proposed deal is basically for large land disposal, extensive development and 25-year control of clinical and non-clinical services. There is much to be commended, but some great concerns have been thrown up by a dilemma.
  The second hospital in the city, Coventry and Warwickshire hospital, is on a central site. As part of the proposals—although those who are putting the good news spin on the story are trying to keep the two separate—the Coventry and Warwickshire hospital will all but close. My fear is that we will get the very worst of all worlds.
  Birmingham central hospital was replaced by a minor injuries unit in order to offset public concern at the loss of facilities. It closed within a year. There is massive concern in Coventry that it will get exactly the same treatment. There is great public pressure to keep facilities in the city centre. It is a good location that is accessible to the entire city. I fear that we will get a minor injuries unit that will dissipate public concern and get rid of the

  413
  pressure. In order to push the main proposals through, we will wind up with an unviable facility that will close within a relatively short period at cost to the public purse.
  The other concern among people is affordability. As I said, we are down to a single bidder in the PFI process, but there is a huge gap of millions of pounds—I cannot get the information to pin the figure down—between what is in the district health authority's budgets that would fund the PFI proposal and what the private sector is saying that it wants in order to make the scheme work. The public money is simply not there, unless the Minister is prepared to give assurances that there is an alternative public route to the necessary works at Walsgrave.
  Alternatives are not available, so what on earth is going to happen to health service budgets in order to lever in the PFI proposal? What will be scrapped? What will be chucked aside? What savings will be made? What will it mean for the terms and conditions of people who work there? What will it mean for the actual service by the time the private sector has knocked it into shape to get the profit that it needs to fund the 25-year, £100 million proposal?
  Another concern I have over the way in which the Government are operating the PFI, which all hon. Members are entitled to have, is about the process, and the lack of accountability. The proposed scheme in Coventry has come out at twice the original cost at the end of a nine-month process, during which, as a Member of Parliament, I have been offered access to the detail only on the basis that it is private and confidential, and that I share it with absolutely no one.
  The chief executive of the community health council has been told by the chief executive of the Walsgrave Hospitals trust that the PFI is nothing to do with the CHC; it has no remit whatever to consider the PFI, despite the fact that the proposal will effectively set the scene for health service delivery in the entire city for many years to come. That is quite disgraceful. There are grave concerns about the loss of city centre provision and the affordability of the scheme. The last thing we want is a hospital that no one can afford to run or use, as I understand already exists in Solihull.
  Will alternative funding be available? I want the Minister to say what control he is prepared to give up in return for the risk transfer. Even if we can shoehorn the proposal into the existing budgets, the private sector will not be prepared to accept the risks involved in running clinical and non-clinical services for a 25-year period without having total control.
  Another issue, which I shall have to raise briefly because of the 10-minutes rule, relates to health inequalities. Much work has been carried out in Coventry to identify the scale of the problem there.
  Earlier this evening, we discussed funding inequalities. Hon. Members know jolly well that proposals were made to ensure equality of funding across the nation, but they were rejected or amended by the Government in the most deplorable way. Although Coventry suffers as a result of funding inequalities, I shall concentrate on health inequalities.
  Research conducted in Coventry some time ago, which has not been challenged, proves that, on average, men living in the more affluent parts of the city such as the
  414
  Bablake ward live nine years longer than men living in the Henley ward. Women in the Earlsdon ward live 10 years longer than women in the Henley ward.
  Research on child health issues demonstrates further inequalities. The results of a study conducted in Coventry show that, if national statistics were applied to Coventry, 20 out of 47 stillbirths or first-week deaths of infants would have been avoided. It shows that 13 out of 31 neonatal deaths would have been avoided, and that 200 out of 383 infants born under 2,500 g would have avoided that difficulty.
  The broad thrust of those findings is that the problem in Coventry is worse than the national average by more than a third. That must apply to other cities, as our problems are no worse than theirs. It is an absolute disgrace that those problems should occur in a so-called developed western country. One would expect them to be limited to third-world countries as we approach the end of the century. Nothing is being done to address those issues.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:) Order. Time is up.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: Having listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), I have started to feel sorry for the Opposition. I realised that they have to believe—or try to believe—the worst of absolutely everything, when the reality—if only they would look at it objectively—is so very different. I now know where Eeyore's sad and gloomy place is—on the Opposition Benches.
  If time had permitted, I had hoped to share with the House an article written by Roy Porter, a medical historian at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, that states that the problem goes back some 200 years to the 18th century. It is not so much new Labour as very old Labour indeed.
  How refreshing it was to hear the speeches of Conservative Members, particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). My experience reflects his. New facilities have been provided in partnership with the private sector at Evesham community hospital and the Spring Gardens health centre in Worcester. The Worcester royal infirmary has a new accident and emergency service and improved rheumatology services, and we are to have a new hospital at last, having been in the queue for 30 years.
  Opposition Members wring their hands in despair at delays of a year here and there. I do not want delays in the building of hospitals, but we have been waiting 30 years for a new hospital under the old Treasury capital funding system, and the PFI gives us the hope of getting one at long last.
  The short title of the debate is "Bureaucracy and Patient Care in the NHS". We are all enemies of bureaucracy and in favour of patient care. Bureaucracy is a word that was coined in the 19th century. John Stuart Mill wrote in the "Westminster Review" of
  "that vast net-work of administrative tyranny … that system of bureaucracy, which leaves no free agent in all France, except the man at Paris who pulls the wires."
  A bureaucrat is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as

  415
  "An official who endeavours to concentrate administrative power in his bureau."
  We are all against bureaucracy, but I hope that we are in favour of management. There are four pages in the Oxford English Dictionary defining management, and almost all are complimentary. I thought that it was common ground across the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded us that, when the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was the Opposition spokesman on health, she said on television:
  "I don't think it's really in question any more that the traditional NHS was under-managed".
  One would not think that from the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) this afternoon.
  I am dispirited by the dishonesty of Labour's attack. A year or two ago, the Opposition targeted company cars, some of which are used by district nurses and health visitors. They totally ignored the reclassification of many nursing grades as managers in their artificially inflated figures for so-called bureaucracy, and, as Conservative Members have repeated time and again, they have resisted every serious attempt by the Government to reduce bureaucracy. They have opposed it nationally and locally.
  Labour voted against the abolition of regional health authorities. That saved hundreds of jobs in my region, and released thousands of pounds for better patient care. Locally, the former Labour leader of Worcester city council recently urged his Labour colleagues on the community health council to vote against the merger of two community health trusts. That would have reduced bureaucracy and released funds for patient care. Labour says one thing and does another.
  When will Labour come clean on where it stands on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's attempt to reduce administrative costs by 5 per cent. in cash terms or 8 per cent. in real terms? It is extraordinary that we have heard nothing about that.
  Of course I understand that the change that the Government have brought to the health service threatens established relationships. It makes consultants feel uncomfortable and imposes extra burdens on GPs, but huge benefits flow from that change. GPs are responding magnificently in seeking to reduce bureaucracy. The "GP links" initiative has reduced the number of forms that GPs need to fill in for the health authority. Many practices have direct computer links to the health authority, vastly reducing the administrative burden.
  The "patients, not paper" initiative has responded to exactly the same concern. Extensive consultations with GPs and practice managers have achieved dramatic results. Forms have been simplified and eliminated, in a way that would gladden the heart of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Form GMS1 for patient registration replaces eight old forms. The new maternity form GMS2 replaces three old forms. Form GMS3—the multi-purpose claim form for non-registered practices—replaces eight old forms. Form GMS4 is a new payment booklet that replaces nine old forms. Those four new forms replace 28 old forms. What an achievement that is, and what a dramatic increase in bureaucracy. For the benefit of Hansard, that was said with irony.
  GP fundholders have cut red tape. They are providing in-house services leading to better patient care and less bureaucracy. They provide physiotherapy services,
  416
  out-patient clinics and surgical procedures. Some GP practices even offer vasectomies. There are electronic links with hospitals making direct bookings for day case surgery offering patients the choice when they want to be treated. They are improving communications with consultants and reducing unnecessary follow-up out-patient attendance by seeing their patients in their surgeries. They are providing better patient care and less bureaucracy time and again.
  Where does Labour stand? What is Labour's policy? I think that we heard it from the Front Bench, although I was unclear earlier. It is to strengthen the power of bureaucrats in the national health service by abolishing GP fundholding and returning responsibility for purchasing to the health authority bureaucrats—managers, as I prefer to call them. They are the very managers who now recognise with stark clarity that GPs are in the best position to manage patient care.
  The role of NHS managers in a primary care-led NHS should be to facilitate greater purchasing by GPs. They should manage the performance of GPs and hold them to account, but they should not buy services for patients they do not know and will never meet. The success of GP fundholding in my area is a great tribute to the system, and all the scare stories have been proved false. No practice has overspent in the year that has just ended, and the resources have been used by GPs significantly to improve services. They have done so, for example, by increasing the number of social workers in practices.
  The trouble that the Labour party has in this debate is the thought that dares not speak its name and which lurks behind all its rhetoric. The shadow Chancellor will not let Labour Members speak that thought, which is, "Is there: more money or not?" That is the question they cannot and will not answer. It is true that the UK spends less on health than most other OECD countries, but that is not: because the Government have not provided the expenditure. Other countries are spending more because there is increased spending by free citizens on private health care. Perhaps that is a policy that Labour might like to consider—giving people choice, something that the Conservatives favour.
  The BMA says that an extra £6 billion is needed—a figure plucked from the air. It reminds me of what J. Paul Getty said in response to the question, "How much money does it take to be happy?" He replied, "Just a little more." That seems to be the policy of the BMA. In fact, the Government have given a lot more, but there has been little gratitude from the BMA. I must be careful what I say here, but I work in the Lord Chancellor's Department as a PPS, and I am used to professional groups wanting "a little more" and dressing it up as professional concern.
  Labour's misrepresentation constantly shocks and amazes me. It chooses the few figures that suit it, and ignores all the others. There are great Labour press releases about the reduction in bed numbers. However, I judge the success of the NHS not by how many beds it has, but by how healthy the country is and by how many patients it treats. The NHS is not an hotel—it is meant to make people better.
  Labour ignores the increase in resources and the increase in the hospital building programme—something it cut the last time it had control. It ignores the real terms increase in staff pay—something, again, that Labour cut when it last had control. It ignores the reduction in waiting

  417
  times, although a disparaging reference was made to it earlier. Labour ignores the fact that there are 55,000 more nurses and midwives and 22,500 more doctors and dentists. That is 85 nurses and 35 doctors for every constituency in the land.
  I am not saying that there is no more that we could do, as there is always more to do. For example, we could help pharmacists, nurses and therapists to play a wider role in the NHS, and give more of them the ability to prescribe. A practical suggestion is that we could review the NHS superannuation regulations to enable practice nurses to work together effectively. The real test of the health service is what it is doing. The Government have increased life expectancy in this country by some two to three years, and that is the real test of what our health service is doing today.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: This debate is about bureaucracy and patient care in the NHS, and I would like to concentrate on patient care.
  The Government have carried out massive reforms of the NHS, and the British people should judge patient care within the NHS by the results. In the past year alone, the NHS has carried out 8.6 million consultant episodes in our hospitals.
  It is worth reflecting that in the four years since the reforms the number of such episodes has risen by no less than 25 per cent.—a massive increase in health care. I well remember that when I first entered the House the talk in the NHS was very much about waiting lists. It is worth noting that, following the reforms, no more people are waiting more than 18 months for an operation, and the 12-month waiting list has fallen throughout the country to just over 4,000 people.
  That is no surprise, as the Conservative Government have spent an immense amount on the NHS compared to the previous Labour Government. There are now 55,000 extra qualified nurses and midwives and 22,500 extra doctors and dentists, so we should take no lessons from Labour about our record of improving health services and about the treatment given to our constituents.
  The motion refers to bureaucracy in the NHS. There has been an increase in the number of administrators in the NHS, but let us be clear about what has been going on. We always used to take pride—and perhaps some amusement—from the fact that the NHS was the largest employer in the world after the Indian railway and the Red Army. The massive bureaucracy that we inherited from Labour has been transformed into a new structure that provides better health care for our people.
  In making this massive transition, the scope for cock-ups and disasters has been immense. Therefore, I do not begrudge the Government and the NHS taking the sensible decision to manage the transition as they have done. We must not put at risk the lives of patients. There are massive transitions in industry, but we are not talking in this case about tins of beans that can be left out in the rain as a result of a change in management practices—we are talking about the lives of our constituents. The Government have had to think carefully about the administration of the transition. It is worth bearing it in mind that, in this year alone, the Government have set a
  418
  target—now that the reforms are bedded down—of an 8 per cent. reduction in the administrative costs of the NHS. Unsurprisingly, Labour made no mention of that policy decision in the motion.
  Where are the bureaucrats and administrators? They are up front and at the sharp end, ensuring that we get value for money from our NHS. For instance, there are now more secretaries, bursars and administrators in fundholding practices to ensure that, under the direct control and instruction of GPs, efficiency is achieved. More than half my constituents now receive excellent services from general practitioners who have chosen to become fundholders. Why have they done so? They have done so because they care about the health of their patients and they want to be able to get things done. That is precisely what they are doing by investing the funds available to the NHS much more sensitively. Considerable as those funds are, we want value for money.
  Fundholding practices are now contracting consultants to their surgeries. One of the fundholding practices in my constituency now has a physician consultant once a week, a surgical consultant every fortnight and a urological consultant every month. The practice is bringing more and more expert health care closer to the patient. But that needs to be managed and administered so that the practice gets the maximum value from those consultants by carefully timetabling and co-ordinating what needs to be done.
  Proper administration is a good thing, but that is not mentioned in the motion. During the transition, we said goodbye to the massive bureaucracy so beloved of the Labour party. In my area, the regional health authority, which has a vast building at Bexhill-on-Sea, is a thing of the past. It has packed its tent, and gone off to goodness knows where. But we no longer have that massive bureaucracy trying to direct health care in my area from all the way up the Sussex coast.
  Likewise, the district health authority's vast bureaucracy at Darenth Park is no more, and I am delighted to see that even the buildings have been bulldozed. As I told the House this morning, the whole area has been cleared for our brand new £100 million district general hospital. That is being built not thanks to the old-fashioned capital provision arrangements to which the Labour party is harking back but because of the PFI. Hospital work is well advanced for that site.
  The purpose of administrators is to help to reduce waiting lists. When I became a Member of Parliament, one of the first problems that I encountered at my surgery was constituents complaining about the handling of their bookings for consultations at hospital. They were called 20 or 50 at a time, like so many potatoes in a row and stuffed in a waiting room. Consultants suited themselves about how many patients they would see and in what order. Under the old Labour system, consultants were responsible to the region for contracts, so the local hospital service had no control over them. When consultants had completed the time that they had deigned to make available, patients were sent packing to book another time. Under proper administration, with the efficiency required by the Conservative Government, patients are seen on time.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) spoke with ghoulish glee about patients whom she claimed had to lie on trolleys in corridors. She does not realise that in

  419
  any big business such as the health service decisions must be made. To be certain that beds will be available for a peak demand from accident and emergency departments, 20 per cent. of bed space must be left unutilised to ensure that there is enough room for emergency admissions at all times. A choice has to be made. Should bed use be kept down to 80 per cent.? If so, higher waiting lists will result, as they did in the past. The number of operations achieved by the NHS has gone up and up while waiting lists have gone down and down because of the maximum use. The price that we pay is that at times of unexpected peaks, which, thank goodness, are comparatively rare, patients may have to wait on trolleys.
  We must understand that trolleys are not like the things Mrs. Mopp wheels the tea through offices on; they are like mobile hospital beds. Their mattresses are thinner than those of hospital beds for obvious clinical reasons. The pejorative use of the word "trolley" is a misnomer. If beds are run at high usage, cancellations of constituents' operations will occasionally result.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Once again, we are debating health issues at an embarrassing time for the Government. Then again, every time that we debate them it is embarrassing for the Government. We can tell that from the tirade of personal attacks that have been launched on my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), not least by the Secretary of State. He and other Conservative Members have launched such attacks, rather than political ones, because they are bankrupt of policies. Never mind what the Secretary of State said; I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will be the Secretary of State for Health after the next general election.
  The British Medical Association is holding its annual conference, at which it has warned that disaster threatens our national health service because of the exodus of general practitioners. The issues that we are debating show why doctors and nurses suffer from low morale and are leaving the medical profession and why most people do not trust the Tories with our national health service.
  It is obvious that bureaucracy in the national health service has risen sharply since the reforms of 1991. Even the Government admit that. However, they have failed to clarify to the public how huge the rise is and how detrimental the misallocation of resources is to patient care. They keep saying that the NHS is funded sufficiently. Yet at a time of limited resources, they have introduced reforms that have sent the bill for NHS bureaucracy rocketing sky high. At the same time, patient care is suffering because of a lack of funding.
  More than one in six NHS acute beds have been cut since 1990–7,664 beds were cut in England last year alone. Patient services are being cut. Paediatric intensive care has faced a crisis. Accident and emergency provision faces financial catastrophe. Only this week, the chairman of the BMA commented that dangerous cuts in funding were sinking the NHS, yet the Government do not respond to the crisis. They do not listen to the medical profession. The cost of bureaucracy in the NHS continues to soar.
  420
  Today, Labour released figures on administrative spending by health authorities that highlight the huge rise in bureaucracy. In the Trent region alone, the cost of bureaucracy rose by £32 million to more than £90 million—a rise of nearly 55 per cent. in only four years. That is the highest rise of any region. During the same period that administrative costs have soared, patient care has suffered because of the lack of financial resources: 2,986 beds have been cut in Trent region since 1990–91. That is a shocking 13 per cent. of its total beds. In the past year, the number of cancelled operations in the region has risen by 36.5 per cent. and the number of nurses has been cut by 9 per cent. in only five years. However, in the same period, the number of managers in the region has increased by a staggering 470 per cent.
  In Doncaster, the purchasing administration budget has risen by £641,000 in only three years—an increase of more than 25 per cent.—yet patient services have had to be cut at local hospitals for financial reasons. It is absurd. Money is being thrown into paperwork, management and massive bureaucracy in negotiating contracts while patient services are being drastically and wrongly cut because of a lack of resources.
  Primary care is also suffering from increased bureaucracy. GPs feel that additional bureaucracy is putting them under pressure and that patient care is therefore suffering. Many responses to our recent consultation of GPs concerned bureaucracy. There was frequent mention of the massive increase in the paperwork involved daily in general practice. Comments that I received from GPs in my constituency highlighted concern about mushrooming bureaucracy and the increase in the management tier, which needs to be kept in proportion to the number of people being managed.
  The BMA also condemns the increase in bureaucracy, citing it as a reason for
  "GP morale being at its lowest ebb for many years",
  and warns that that is
  "stifling innovation and the further development of patient services in many practices."
  A 1992–93 survey of GPs' work load showed that the reported average weekly time spent on practice administration associated with the provision of general medical services had increased by 85 per cent. since 1985–86.
  In a survey carried out by Middlesex university earlier this year, 98 per cent. of GPs questioned complained that their paperwork had increased by nearly 90 per cent.
  It is clear that the changes in the NHS brought about by the Government are swamping GPs with paperwork and damaging patient care. Britain has an excellent record on primary care. We cannot let the Government go on pushing it past its limits.
  The GP fundholding scheme has increased spending on managers. Management costs within health authorities and extra contracting and transaction costs for trusts are not met by efficiency savings. Those are the findings of the Audit Commission; they are not mine. GP fundholding carries a huge burden of increased bureaucracy. Management costs are as high as £80,000 per practice. A recent NHS executive report comments that GP fundholding carries a significant administration tail, which, in a number of places, is excessive.
  In addition, hospital trusts are being financially hammered by the costs of administrating fundholding contracts. The NHS executive report states:

  421
  "Income from fundholding for most Trusts is between 5 and 10 per cent. of the total revenue … yet most employ at least twice as many people to support fundholder contracts … as they employ to support the Health Authority contracts."
  The amount of paperwork generated by many individual contracts is astronomical.
  Another problem concerns GP fundholder underspending. Underspending by GP fundholders in the Doncaster area has resulted in £900,000 not being spent on hospital services. That has resulted in two hospital wards in Doncaster being closed. GP fundholders' underspending is being blamed for those hospital ward closures. It is not just me who is saying that, but people at the Doncaster royal infirmary as well.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way because my colleagues are waiting to speak.
  The sad fact about the Government and their changes is that market forces do not work in health care. The reality is that market forces driven by the Government are wrecking our health services. The truth is that our health service is not safe in the Government's hands and everybody except Conservative Back Benchers knows that.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I shall speak briefly about paediatric intensive care in Yorkshire because current provision is wholly inadequate. It is inadequate to the point that it is putting the lives of children at risk.
  In the whole of Yorkshire we have just seven general paediatric intensive care beds to serve a population of more than 1 million children. It is one of the worst population-bed ratios in the country. Five of those paediatric intensive care beds are at Leeds general infirmary and last year it had to turn away 75 desperately ill children during the year, 61 of them during the winter months, because all the beds were full and none could be made available.
  On 6 March the Secretary of State made a statement to the House about improvements that he intended to make to intensive care services. He promised that those extra beds would be in by the coming winter. The Yorkshire regional health authority carried out a study of the needs in our region and determined that three extra paediatric intensive care beds and six extra high-dependency beds were required.
  The local purchasing authorities have agreed to fund just one of the nine additional beds which the regional health authority decided were required. That shows the consequences of the Government's NHS internal market working at its worst. Year after year of efficiency savings have forced hospitals to cut beds; but the pressure to cut beds is greatest on intensive care beds because they are the most expensive. That leads to the perverse result that the beds of which there is the severest shortage are the very ones needed for the most severely ill patients.
  Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) referred to the case of Nicholas Geldard. Let me remind the House briefly of what happened to
  422
  him. He was a 10-year-old boy who was taken ill. His parents called an ambulance and he was taken to Stockport general infirmary. The casualty department decided that he needed a scan but did not have a scanner, so an ambulance was called to transfer the child to Stepping Hill hospital. It took an hour to arrive; by the time the boy got to Stepping Hill hospital the scanner had closed for the day. It operates only from nine to five. So it was decided to leave the scan to the following day. When the child became more ill in the night he was transferred to Hope hospital.
  At the Hope hospital a brain haemorrhage was diagnosed and doctors said that the boy needed an immediate operation—but they had no paediatric intensive care bed. So they telephoned around the region, and then further afield, and eventually found a bed at Leeds general infirmary. So nine or 10 hours later the child was taken by ambulance over the Pennines through a snowstorm. When he got to the hospital and doctors examined him the child was found to be dead: he had arrived too late.
  I have here a letter from Dr. Mark Darowski, the director of the paediatric intensive care unit at the LGI. He says:
  "I was the clinician who had to declare him dead and to deal with the understandable anger and devastation of his family … I would therefore like to bring to your attention the impending crisis which will occur in Yorkshire despite the assertions of the Minister. Without adequate provision it is only a matter of time before other families suffer in the way that Nicholas Geldard's has."
  I have written to the Secretary of State about the points raised with me by the LGI unit, asking two questions. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the one additional paediatric intensive care bed that our region is to get will be adequate to meet the need. Secondly, if he does not believe it adequate—he cannot believe that, given what he said to the House on 6 March—I asked him what action he and the NHS executive will take to override the internal market decision to supply only one additional bed, so as to ensure that the nine that are needed are provided.
  Because I have given notice in writing of my questions to the Secretary of State well in advance of this debate, may I have an answer tonight from the Minister of State? Is one extra bed enough for the needs of desperately ill children in Yorkshire? If not, what will the Minister and the Department do to increase provision so that, contrary to the warning issued by the director of the LGI paediatric intensive care unit, there are no more desperate cases like that of Nicholas Geldard?
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Ken Purchase: I am grateful to hon. Members for allowing me a few moments in which to bring to the attention of the House a serious matter in my constituency. First it is necessary to provide a little background. But even before that I want to contradict one or two of the assertions made this evening by Conservative Members.
  First, disregarding the changes in the administration of the health services that the Government have made, it must be remembered that the thousands of people who worked as administrators in our health services throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s did an absolutely splendid professional job and deserve recognition for it. More of that in a moment.

  423
  I abhor the suggestion that only general practitioners who have gone for contract holding are giving a good service to our patients. General practitioners, and those working with them in the health services, give their best— their work is of a tremendously high standard—whether they are on payment by results, whether they are fundholders or whether they are working under the old-fashioned rules of public service in the interests of patients. The balance should be redressed because some people pretend that there have been improvements in the health service only since these reforms. That is nonsense.
  I shall refer to the way in which we have reached this point of additional bureaucracy in the health service. I— along with many other people—served in the health service on district committees and on area committees, and for no pay. We were proud to do so. In those days, we did not need the kind of reward that we see today— it is multiplied again and again on trusts and on other organisations that have been put together by the Government as part of the quangocracy. It is an absolute disgrace—there is no need for it whatsoever and it has not led to a qualitative improvement in any of the administrative services within the health framework.
  I refer to competitive tendering. I wonder whether it will ever be possible for us to get a figure on the amount of money that has been spent on financial consultants. They allegedly helped the in-house teams put their tenders together and conducted the training that was necessary for them to promote their services. There was a business plan, and cash flow problems resulted therein. There was a change in the working hours and the practices that had to be undertaken. Thousands of pounds—if not millions of pounds—were spent on consultants who were offering so-called management advice.
  The upshot of all this is that up and down the country the in-house teams are still doing the same work—and probably for less money in terms of the hourly rates and the salaries that they receive. In many instances, we have lost workers off the wards, particularly those who were cleaners in the hotel services. They have suffered tremendously as a result of that part of the Government's so-called reforms.
  I refer to contracting out, particularly in the west midlands. Millions of pounds were lost in computer scams—contracting out failed miserably. It ultimately resulted in the ignominious resignation of the then chairman of the region, Sir James Ackers. He literally had to be forced through the door—there was a public outcry—because of the way in which he administered the Government's reforms in the health service in the west midlands. However, worse was to follow in the litany of waste that the Conservative Government thrust on the national health service. The Government had the temerity to pay this man to leave the health service—he was paid thousands of pounds in compensation. What an absolute disgrace.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is endemic.
  Mr. Purchase: Yes, it is endemic. The Government filled the quangocracy with their friends, many of whom had no experience in the health service or in the ethos that underpins it. There has been one scam after another in Wales, in Scotland, in the south-east of England and in the west midlands.
  424
  I draw the attention of hon. Members to the serious problem that we have in Wolverhampton in relation to the hospital services. This year, for the fifth year in a row, they have to find £2.4 million is worth of savings— equivalent to 3 per cent. The Government seem to think that efficiency savings can continue ad infinitum, but the savings have to be taken from a smaller total resource and many departments are already stressed because they have to provide an increasing level of service. They have been asked to treat the same number of patients for 3 per cent. less or to increase the amount of work they do, but this year, in Wolverhampton, the hospitals are being asked to find £2.4 million in cash by the NHS executive. That will be difficult, if not impossible.
  I shall tell the House what will happen in Wolverhampton to meet that programme of cuts in services. Two intensive care beds out of a total of seven will close. That is not many to start with, but we will lose two. A day surgery unit will close for two weeks during August and two weeks at Christmas to try to recoup some expenditure. The main operating theatres will close for two weeks in August and at Christmas. Seven orthopaedic beds, six surgical beds, 10 gynaecology beds and nine neurology beds will be lost. The list goes on. Those closures will be made to meet the programme of cuts demanded by the Government and administered through the NHS executive.
  The closure of an acute medical ward that specialises in the care of the elderly has been proposed and that will mean a reduction of 33 per cent. in the service. The freezing of posts is an old chestnut, but so many posts have been frozen for so many years that few or no posts are left that are not urgently needed. The quality of patient care is bound to diminish as a result. A further 11 posts in the operating theatres will not be filled.
  That is the programme that faces my authority in Wolverhampton. The question is not whether the trusts are efficient or effective, because the health service has been run effectively and efficiently for as long as people can remember. I accuse the Government of misunderstanding the nature of what they call market-driven efficiency. We have seen year-on-year improvements in technology, management techniques and operating practices. Those improvements would have happened anyway.
  Mr. Malone indicated dissent.
  Mr. Purchase: Yes, they would. The Minister should ask the people who have worked in the service for years, probably before he started work. They have given the community their best, but he might not understand that. The way in which the Government have acted in the public services has demoralised the staff and demolished the spirit of the people who have provided those services since 1945 and the great reforms of the then Labour Government.
  We have heard many individual examples of suffering and difficulties created by the so-called market reforms. They are not reforms: they are a diminution of the service and that is shown every day. The dreadful cuts that I have mentioned, which will befall the people of Wolverhampton, exemplify that point. Earlier, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) suggested that Labour Members told scare stories to frighten the horses. Our stories do not frighten the horses, but they scare the patients to death.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Unfortunately, I have not been given the up-to-date result, but I imagine that it is full time and if the score has stayed the same it will be one-all. Extra time will be played and, as the nation will be on a knife-edge, we can get on with the health debate. I am sure that if more information comes into the Chamber, we can pass it on to those assembled.
  It is interesting to hear the different approaches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Most of my hon. Friends have made sensible, constructive and incisive points about health problems in their areas.
  Mr. Dorrell: Come on.
  Mr. McLeish: The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we deal with reality and we do not seek to hide within a self-constructed fantasy.
  We have had excellent contributions from my hon. Friends, who have tried to bring the real concerns of the people whom they represent to the Chamber.
  In sharp contrast, and despite the efforts of the Secretary of State, three Conservative contributions highlighted the differences in the approaches of the Government and the Opposition. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Government are providing a safety net. We argue that the Tories are making that claim throughout the country. The second extraordinary contribution came from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who said that there were sound reasons why the Tories voted against the NHS legislation in 1946. The Conservatives have clearly continued to accept only grudgingly the unique and best public service in this country.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) crystallised the Government's approach to health when he said that trolleys should become an accepted part of NHS culture and language.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No, I will not give way at this stage.
  Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to misquote an hon. Member and then not allow him to correct that misquote?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is responsible for his own speech.
  Mr. McLeish: In a grown-up political environment, if one makes a comment, one lives with the consequences. The hon. Gentleman suggested that trolleys were more comfortable than people think. Labour Members believe that patients should have beds and not trolleys. We believe that patients should be in wards and not in corridors and that patients should be seen by doctors and not left waiting for hours in accident and emergency wards. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is what he said. It is important that the nation understands what is happening.
  Mr. Arnold: I said in my contribution that a choice must be made. In order to make certain that beds are
  426
  available, one must operate beds at 20 per cent. below capacity. The decision to operate them at a higher capacity is one of the reasons why waiting lists have been reduced. One must make a choice and strike a balance. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say categorically that a Labour Government would operate at only 80 per cent. of capacity, he should do so. He must make a choice.
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman did not deny my comments—that is the important point. He can exaggerate and set up smokescreens but, at the end of the day, the Conservative party has advocated trolleys as an acceptable part of NHS language and culture.
  It was interesting to note also the characteristic contribution by the Secretary of State. It was uninspiring, but that is nothing new. It is important to note that, while he decided to go on the attack—with their record, that is the only thing that the Government can do—he failed to tell the House about his contribution at the conference of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. The Times of Saturday 22 June summed it up by saying:
  "Dorrell gives the go-ahead for longer hospital waiting lists".
  If that is not a white-flag surrender job, I do not know what is. The Government have lambasted every political party about their views on the NHS. They claim that they are cutting bureaucracy and that they will invest more in patient care. That is not happening in the real world of the national health service.
  The Secretary of State said that, as a consequence of the crisis in the national health service, the Government's great initiative to reduce waiting lists has been abandoned. The Government's market-driven NHS simply cannot cope with the burgeoning bureaucracy and the fact that there is not enough investment in patient care. Bureaucratic costs in the national health service are spiralling out of control.
  It is hypocritical of Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and wax lyrical about their actions now that the horse has bolted. The stable door cannot be closed: health costs are spiralling out of control and Ministers do not have a clue what to do about it. Even more worrying is the fact that they simply do not care. Ministers are sitting at the centre of the market-led NHS, unconcerned about the crises throughout the health service. They know about them, but they are unwilling to address them. Today the Secretary of State confirmed our belief that, in his opportunism, he is more concerned about the future of the Conservative party after its defeat at the next election than about real patients in the national health service.
  More important, the debate has been about defining points in the NHS for the debate that will take place between now and the general election. Let us be clear what those points are. First, the Government want a residual NHS. They do not want to see a one-nation health service.
  Mr. Arnold: Rubbish!
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman may shout "Rubbish!", but if the Government want to ignore the reality of public opinion, public perception and professional concern between now and the general election, that is fine by me, because, in government, we shall start to address some of the issues that they are ignoring.
  Secondly, Conservatives regard the health service as a business—a view that is not shared by the Labour party or the country. The health service is a public service with a

  427
  very distinct ethos. That is what makes it work. That is why we have commitment from nurses, doctors and ancillary services throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Conservatives are in danger of squandering that most precious of resources, and that is a defining issue.
  The main issue, which is what the debate is about, is the Conservatives' obsession with bureaucracy and the market. The Secretary of State and the Minister can shed crocodile tears about what they are doing, but it simply will not wash. The Conservative party has constructed a market that is destroying the heart of the NHS, but it cannot do anything about it because, despite the disappearance of the previous Prime Minister, it is still gripped with ideology when a bit more pragmatism would do well in the NHS.
  In contrast to the Conservatives' market obsession, the Labour party wants to see a collaborative model. We want to see a national health service that co-operates. Look at the shambles of British Rail. We want to avoid that prospect for the NHS. We want to put the NHS back together again. That makes sense for everyone who works in it, and it makes sense for patients.
  One defining point that the Conservatives simply cannot run away from is their ability to squander vast sums of taxpayers' money, not in the interest of patients or professionals but in the interest of ideology. There is something fundamentally immoral about other people's moneys being used for a political and ideological adventure. But they are guilty of that, and whatever they say about it, that is a key issue.
  The most important defining issue between Labour and the Conservatives is the fact that we believe in the NHS.
  Mr. Dorrell: Come on.
  Mr. McLeish: In 50 years, the NHS has provided an excellent quality of life for people in this country. We believe in a world-class service for the next 50 years, not the residual service that the Government are working towards.
  We have talked about defining points, and that is crucial, because the next election will be fought not on the evasion that we see from Conservative Members but on the reality that faces patients and professionals in every part of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Conservatives can run, but at the time of reckoning they simply will not be able to hide. Let me give a warning to the Government. They may think that the five years of reforms have changed the face of the NHS. They have not. The great work that has been done by the NHS in the past 50 years has not been undone by five years of reforms, but if we have another five years of these crazy reforms, the next 50 years of the NHS will be completely and utterly destroyed. We simply will not stand for that. The Minister and the Secretary of State should be warned that they will face a vigorous campaign about the choice that we will offer at the next election.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The only point on which I take issue with my hon. Friend is the fact that he referred to only five years of Government-imposed reforms. Their reforms are like the painting of the Forth bridge—they start on one end and they never finish. They keep reforming their reforms. I remember that it was "Sir Sheath Durex"—[Laughter.]— or whatever his name was—Sir Keith Joseph—who reformed the NHS. He created the area health authorities and the regional health authorities and set up the
  428
  bureaucracy which then had to be abolished, and the Conservatives have continued with reforms since they came back into office.
  Mr. McLeish: No doubt it would be unparliamentary for me to repeat part of what my hon. Friend said, but he chose an excellent analogy in the Forth bridge. Never mind the painting; the bridge has been sold. It is an interesting analogy, given what may happen to the national health service.
  The Government are out of touch with national sentiment, and out of step with public concerns. Let me repeat the obvious: the sooner they are out of office, the better it will be for the future of the NHS. My central charge is this. The artificial market is being propped up by the spending of more and more money on this market madness, and a paperchase is being substituted for the delivery of patient care. We believe in a patient-centred NHS—in patient choice and patient care. We have heard speeches defending managers, bureaucrats and almost everyone, but I did not hear much mention of patients. Perhaps that is another defining issue that the Government have forgotten to challenge.
  It is important to remind the Government of the catalogue of chaos that currently constitutes parts of the NHS. We have heard about intensive care tonight: we have heard about paediatrics, and accident and emergency departments. We are seeing the development of two-tierism throughout the country. The Government defend that. They enjoy the fact that some patients have more rights of referral than others. It is a disgrace, but they are happy to trumpet it as a success.
  The Government also defend the private finance initiative. We have posed an interesting question to the Secretary of State, which he ducks on every occasion. Where are the contracts? How many are there, and how many openings will my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) be attending as Secretary of State; for Health when we take over in a few months' time? I fear that it will not be as many as she would like. [Interruption.] Ministers are now discussing the future of the PFI. The fact is that it is going nowhere, because it is expensive. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should sit down, and allow the: debate on the Government Front Bench to become public.
  Ministers have mentioned the sum of £500 million, but that figure could be £500 billion. Unless it is translated into positive action—bricks and mortar—patients will not be helped.
  Let me raise a more serious point. There is a crisis in relation to health inequalities, which the Government simply will not address. In 1994, there were 11.4 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, but in Kingston and Richmond the figure was 3.1. It is a factor of four. Why is that? Poverty and affluence are clearly involved, but another key issue is lack of access to health care throughout the country. The Government talk of bureaucracy, but I submit that saving people from early death should always be a priority in any health service.
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree.
  Mr. McLeish: That is fine, but I want to know what the Secretary of State intends to do. Let me give him another statistic for good measure. In 1994 there were 126 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 of the population, but in

  429
  Chichester there were only 51. On the vital issues of coronary heart disease, breast cancer, infant mortality and long-term illnesses, there are unacceptable differences throughout a so-called one-nation health service. I think that we know the reason for that: the Government have simply run out of energy, enthusiasm and commitment to health equality.
  Here is a statistic that the Government do not like. Over the past five years the number of nurses has fallen by 50,000, and there are 19,000 fewer in training—but, of course, there are 20,000 extra managers. Does that not constitute a comment on the current state of the NHS? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Conservative Members chorus "Not true," but they are the Government's figures—sourced by the Library from Government computers.
  Two other issues dominate the health scene. One is the crisis in cancer care.
  Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Ah!
  Mr. McLeish: I can tell the Whip that if the health service is fragmented, contractorised and competitive, there can be no rational or regional planning. Thousands of cancer patients have been badly served by the Government's crazy market set-up. Perhaps the Whip will reflect on his reaction and support my remarks.
  The health aspects of food are also in a shambles, as we have seen with the beef and powdered baby milk crises. When the Government do not trust the people, they end up in a mess. Of concern to all is that we have doctor against doctor, hospital against hospital, GP against GP and district health authority against district health authority. One cannot deny the realities of the market. The present competitive system is costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune and all that the Government can say is that we are denying reality. It is clear from the practical problems experienced by our constituents that that is so.
  I have spoken about the manifestations of the crisis in the health service, so now I will highlight the core issues. It is impossible to imagine that the Government will continue to squander money on bureaucracy when investment in patient care is required. Hon. Members spoke earlier about the wonderful asset of NHS staff and the key players, but their morale is at rock bottom, with 900,000 people looking for leadership. They need not look to the Government Benches because in a privatised set-up, staff are regarded only as hired hands. We regard those staff as a vital asset. They must be given leadership and allowed to participate.
  The privatisation of the railways has provided a classic example of a Government whose ideology blinkers them from reality. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may tut, but the British Rail network has been split into 100 parts, and that is called efficiency. The same is happening with the health service. There are free-standing GPs, free-standing trusts and a PFI that seeks to embrace services rather than bricks and mortar. All the building blocks are there and the market will ultimately destroy much of the legacy that it will inherit over the next decade.
  Nor is there any momentum in the NHS; instead there is a yearning for a change of Government. The Minister will know from visiting GPs that they are sick and tired of a Government who preach the principle of listening but never
  430
  listen. A few years ago, the Government created the monster of the market, which is eating up cash and cannot be controlled. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said that when there is a Labour Government, we will control the market. We will ensure that hard-earned taxpayers' money is transferred to patient care, which is the big issue for the next century—not patient charters or crocodile tears over not being able to save on bureaucracy.
  After 50 years of the NHS, why should the public have to wait and worry? The country should have a Government who address all the issues in the interests of patients. That ultimately means cutting bureaucracy and giving a new boost to the NHS culture that the patient is the most important consideration. If that is done, all the talk about positive outcomes will be proved right, because we will stop people dying unnecessarily. We will overcome health variations, which are impossible to support in a modern society. We will also give leadership to the 900,000 NHS staff—who are yearning for change, which only Labour can provide.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said that this debate had had several defining points, and he is the Labour Front Bencher who decided to say that one of those defining points was finance. I must tell him and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—who dodged the issue when opening the debate—that I shall spend some time in my speech pressing Opposition Members to state precisely how they would fund the NHS. That is the core of the issue.
  On a year-on-year basis, in real terms this Government have spent more than any other Government have ever spent, and we have issued a commitment to continue doing so. We heard nothing from any Opposition Member about how they would deal with that core point.
  The hon. Members for Fife, Central and for Peckham have approached this debate principally on the hypothesis that they will be able to fund the necessary increase in NHS spending by cutting bureaucracy. They have supported that statement with figures that are dodgy, to say the least. I shall set out the true position and describe what the Government have done to bear down vigorously on management costs in the NHS.
  Last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced a 5 per cent. cash reduction—8 per cent. in real terms—in the costs of running health authorities and in trust management costs in 1996–97, the merger of district health authorities and family health services authorities and the abolition of regional health authorities. In a debate that is based on the abolition of bureaucracy, the House will be interested to note that the Labour party opposed the measure to abolish regional health authorities.
  Those measures will release about £300 million for patient care by 1996–97. That is composed of £54 million from cuts in health authority costs, £95 million from cuts in trust management costs, £101 million from abolition of regional health authorities and £55 million from streamlining the Department of Health—which has been done with great vigour.
  When it comes to bearing down on bureaucracy in the NHS and ensuring that we get the best value for taxpayers' money, the Government have a first-class record. In a

  431
  moment, I shall deal with some of the points made by Opposition Members about bureaucracy in some detail and show how their argument is flawed, but first I shall deal with the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) made a robust defence of management. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, she was able to do so from a position that provides her—and other Committee members—with a great insight into the importance of proper management. I find it somewhat paradoxical that Opposition Members are constantly saying that we have too much management and bureaucracy in the NHS, yet, when they sit on the Select Committee and when they table parliamentary questions, they are the ones who demand NHS facts, figures and proper accountability—which requires that a proper management structure is in place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne quite rightly made the point that if our national health service, which is responsible for £40 billion of taxpayers' money per annum, is to be accountable, it must be properly managed: first, to be accountable and, secondly, to be effective.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who has not returned to the Chamber—came out, as he always does, with many interesting figures, none of which I recognise. He made one point about the National Health Service Consultants Association. I can tell him that a reply to the letter that he mentioned will be on its way to that association soon.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) expressed some concerns about community health care for children. I am sure that she will be pleased to know that, after full consultations in which more than 250 responses were received, a guide on community child health services is with the printers and will be issued soon. I hope that she will welcome that.
  Mrs. Wise rose—
  Mr. Malone: I apologise for not giving way to the hon. Lady, but my time is limited, and I want to deal with all the speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who said that he might not be able to be in his place for the winding-up speeches, made a historical speech. He reminded us of pointless past bureaucracy in the health service. He was right to make that point vigorously. The Government are focusing the management function on providing effective increases in patient care and on ensuring that inefficiency is driven out of the service. My hon. Friend specifically said that he hoped that liaison between community health trusts and social services committees could be encouraged. I heartily endorse that view. Indeed, we encourage that practice wherever possible.
  The hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) derided the voluntary sector. I was amazed. Unfortunately, it is something that he and his friends do too often. He complained that some services for patients—in particular a voluntary, I presume counselling, service for cancer patients—are delivered by voluntary
  432
  organisations. As I go around the country, I frequently hear that argument, usually levelled at leagues of friends who in fact do tremendous work for the public sector and underpin the connection between the health service and the community.
  When Labour Members deride those organisations and say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that those services should be delivered from public funds—[Interruption.] That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. Labour Members do no service to the thousands of people who add to the services provided by the NHS.
  Mr. Touhig rose—
  Mr. Malone: No, I will not give way.
  The hon. Member for Islwyn went on to make some useful points about nurse leadership and development, which I heartily endorse.
  Mr. Touhig: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Is it a point of order for the Chair?
  Mr. Touhig: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am entitled to ensure that my remarks in this Chamber are not misrepresented. I made no such statement and I seek the support of the Chair in this matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for sufficient time to know that there are opportunities available to him to deal with that—for example, the Order Paper, and so on—and that he should not attempt to bring the Chair into any interpretation of any hon. Member's speech.
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) rightly praised trusts for being efficient. He mentioned one in particular in his constituency, which I visited some time ago, where I saw precisely what NHS reforms have been able to bring to trusts. It is not just that they are more efficient and can deliver better health care; it is that as in Newham, where I was this week, and in Andover, where I was yesterday, trust hospitals, with their new freedoms, are now able to provide more efficient, but better, health care to patients in their community by entering into partnerships with other trusts and developing those in a way that the Opposition entirely ignore.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) made points relating to her constituency, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) made an important point about the British Medical Association acknowledging that the Government have addressed the problems of bureaucracy. The BMA has welcomed that. In the light of this conference season, praise from the BMA is, perhaps, not usual, but it is clearly something that the Government welcome when it comes. The BMA made an important point.

  433
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) rightly referred to bureaucracy being streamlined and waiting lists going down in his constituency. He also pointed out that, as a result of NHS reforms and changes that the Government have brought to bear, there is new hospital building in his constituency. I welcome that, too.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to private finance solutions for Walsgrave and Bromsgrove. He said that he was afraid that they would not be affordable. I have to disappoint him—Walsgrave Hospitals NHS trust will be announcing its plans and its preferred private sector partnership at the end of this week.
  As business cases are approved and the PFI is going out on a planned process towards completion, Opposition Members crow, but they crow too early, for the PFI will be a fundamental way to provide new funds for the NHS and capital development. Before, people had to wait for an inordinate amount of time. The hon. Member for Peckham will know full well about the cases when they are finally announced in a formal way, and I promise her that she will then be smiling—perhaps—slightly on the other side of her face.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) made a powerful speech in which he set out the proper role of management and talked about the course of change to reduce bureaucracy that had constantly been opposed by the Labour party. He was quite right to do that. On one hand, the Labour party decides to feature bureaucracy as the basis of this debate, and on the other it entirely ignores and stands in the way at local level of the effort to get bureaucracy out of the health service and improve efficiency.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) made a specific point to which he asked me to respond. I have asked officials about the prior notice that he gave, but I am sorry to tell him that there is no trace of it. There is an outstanding letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to which the hon. Gentleman will receive a reply in due course.
  During the opening speeches, a degree of sensitivity was displayed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It was because the issue strikes at the heart of Labour's problem. Labour Members talk in soundbites about health, but propose nothing. When they propose something and they are found out for proposing it, their first reaction is to deny it, as the hon. Gentleman did. Let us pin the Labour party down about fundholding, which now services 52 per cent. of England's population. The hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying that once in power
  "we will remove the internal market and the principle of a single practice holding a budget will not be there."
  Mr. McLeish: Replace.
  Mr. Malone: Replace or abolish? I am not quite sure which. In the eyes of any fundholder, "replacing" is a euphemism for "abolishing". I understand that those who attended the conference at which the hon. Gentleman spoke were not convinced by the euphemism and entirely understood the purpose of the hon. Gentleman and his party: it was to do away with all the excellent work that
  434
  fundholders have built up over seven waves of fundholding. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will deny that.
  Mr. McLeish: I would have thought that the intervention in relation to the Secretary of State's comments would iron out that particular point, but it would appear that, to gain some cheap political points, the Minister will not acknowledge the sincerity and honesty with which I said that the comments reported by the Secretary of State were simply untrue. Does the Minister accept the sincerity of the point that I am making or is he going to ignore it and make political points anyway? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Malone: We want to know what the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman mean—so do fundholders, and so do the 150 of them who were at the meeting. They will no doubt have their views on what the hon. Gentleman has said, which, of course, I accept in the spirit of a debate across the Dispatch Box.
  I said that I would look with some care at what the Labour party was saying about bureaucracy and figures. I accuse it of playing fast and loose with figures all the time and of ensuring that a false picture of the health service is represented. I shall refer to one instance of that.
  I nodded in the direction of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I am perfectly happy to answer his parliamentary questions. He issued a press release today on a subject at the core of this debate—health authority administrative spending, which, according to his press release, rose by more than £315 million to £1.1 billion between 1991 and 1994–95.
  I remember answering the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary question and I also remember writing to him because I thought that the figures should not be misunderstood and should be properly explained. My letter said:
  "The figures have not been adjusted to constant prices. Changes over the years and the roles and responsibilities of health authorities and the transfer of functions to NHS Trusts … also mean that the figures are not strictly comparable."
  Health authorities now fulfil a substantial number of functions that they did not have in the past—involving public health and programmes for the relief of AIDS. An analysis of the figures on the proper terms—which I set out in my letter to the hon. Gentleman—shows that the truth is rather different. To fund those increased and changed activities, there has been an increase in expenditure from 1991–92 to 1994–95 of 0.1 per cent. per annum in real terms. That puts matters in a different context. What is more, those figures do not take into account the abolition of regional health authorities, saving some £101 million. Although the hon. Gentleman says that he wants to decrease bureaucracy, the Labour party opposed that £101 million.
  If we want to look at the defining moments to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central referred, there is one source to which we can turn with confidence—the recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition at the NAHAT conference. It was a speech full of contradictions. He heard the message loud and clear when he said:
  "You do not want more major upheaval".

  435
  However, in the next breath, he promised the health service that he would replace the internal market, causing the upheaval that he claimed it did not want. In the following breath, he said:
  "Planning and delivery of health care will remain distinct functions".
  That undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman totally undermines the case of the hon. Member for Peckham, as it defends the mechanisms of purchasing and delivery and promises that they will remain firmly in place. It is absolutely typical of the Opposition to make an assertion and slide away from it.
  It is important to note that that speech supported a deceitful party policy. At its centre is Labour's big lie. Labour refuses to say how much it will spend on health. Where is Labour's commitment to build on the success of the health service that Opposition Members have persistently mentioned tonight? Everyone involved in the health service understands that the engine of growth in our NHS is, and always has been, proper funding. Of course, efficiency gains improve patient care, as does cutting bureaucracy—which Labour opposed in the House. However, if one asks anyone who works in the NHS what is the litmus test of the Government's commitment, the answer will be a commitment to fund on a continuing basis. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out that commitment to increase funding in real terms in the next Parliament, as the Government have done consistently since we came to power.
  What does the Leader of the Opposition have to say about that? It should have been up front on page 1 of his speech. I read page 1 of his speech and it was not there. Nor was it on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. On page 9, in the dying moments of the speech, the right hon. Gentleman steels himself. The audience sits on the edge of its seat and hears that a Labour Government would look at whether there was a funding gap that needed to be bridged. That is highly courageous, but utterly meaningless. The Opposition constantly complain that we do not spend enough as a percentage of GDP on health. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to let us know what Labour would do. We have increased spending as a proportion of GDP by more than 1 per cent.
  The NHS has been well defended and well supported by the Government. It now delivers more health care than ever before, and has more doctors and nurses delivering health care to patients. Yet again, that figure has been entirely distorted by Labour. Since 1984, the number of qualified nurses in the NHS providing care for patients has increased by 22,950.
  This has been a debate in which the Opposition have failed the test of supporting the NHS. They run for cover as soon as any suggestion is made of a true commitment.
  Ms Ann Coffey rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 260.

  Division No. 158]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  George, Bruce

  Ainger, Nick

  Gerrard, Neil

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Allen, Graham

  Godsiff, Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Austin-Walker, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barnes, Harry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gunnell, John

  Battle, John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Henderson, Doug

  Bell, Stuart

  Heppell, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Benton, Joe

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hodge, Margaret

  Berry, Roger

  Home Robertson, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hood, Jimmy

  Blunkett, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Bradley, Keith

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hutton, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Janner, Greville

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Keen, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Khabra, Piara S

  Coffey, Ann

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbett, Robin

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corston, Jean

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dafis, Cynog

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davidson, Ian

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dewar, Donald

  McLeish, Henry

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Madden, Max

  Dowd, Jim

  Maddock, Diana

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mahon, Alice

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mandelson, Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maxton, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Meacher, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fraser, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  437

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Short, Clare

  Morley, Elliot

  Simpson, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe,

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tyler, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wallace, James

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Raynsford, Nick

  Welsh, Andrew

  Reid, Dr John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rendel, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Peter Hain and

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashby, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Duncan, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dunn, Bob

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dykes, Hugh

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Elletson, Harold

  438

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Luff, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Forth, Eric

  Malone, Gerald

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mans, Keith

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marlow, Tony

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gallie, Phil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Gamier, Edward

  Mills, Iain

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Gorst, Sir John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Norris, Steve

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Page, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Pickles, Eric

  Hawkins, Nick

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heald, Oliver

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Richards, Rod

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Riddick, Graham

  Horam, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rurnbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sackville, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Demy N)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

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

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knox, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Legg, Barry

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Stephen, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Stem, Michael

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lidington, David

  Streeter, Gary

  439

  Sumberg, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ward, John

  Sykes, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  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

  Willetts, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Walden, George

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

  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.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the staff of the National Health Service for providing high quality care to a record number of patients, and notes that their achievements have been underpinned by the Government's unique commitment to increasing National Health Service funding, which has meant an extra £9.5 billion since 1992, and is dismayed that the Opposition proposals put ideology before patients, in particular by removing the option of fundholding from the 50 per cent. of general practitioners who have decided that this system offers the best prospect for their patients.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together motions 3, 4 and 5 relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  HARBOURS, DOCKS, PIERS AND FERRIES
  That the draft Ipswich Port Authority Transfer Scheme 1996 Confirmation Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
  FAMILY LAW
  That the draft Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  DEREGULATION

    STILL-BIRTHS
    That the draft Deregulation (Still-Birth and Death Registration) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
    Question agreed to.

  Secondary Schools (Chorley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: It gives me great pleasure this evening to raise the matter of secondary school allocations in the Chorley area in Lancashire and to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who have adjoining constituencies to my own and who have similar problems to some that I shall be raising.
  Secondary schooling is the most important step or change in any child's school career, and the maximisation of children's abilities at the delicate age of 11 when they move from primary to secondary school is of paramount importance. Education is the best investment of all and it is up to us, as representatives of the people, to ensure that the allocations are fair and appropriate, and that the best is brought out of all children according to their abilities.
  My worry is that, in the Chorley area, parents are asked for their first, second and third preferences of secondary schools, so they spend a lot of time with their children and put in a lot of effort going round the various secondary schools of varying natures in my area, in the borough of South Ribble, and perhaps across the border in Bolton. They may develop an affinity with a particular school, and their child likes it, so they put down their first, second and third preferences on a form supplied to them by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.
  The unfairness is that many of my parents, particularly in the north and east of the Chorley constituency, have not been getting any of their first three preferences. That is unacceptable and a total waste of time and effort, and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister this evening whether it will be possible for her to lean on Lancashire county council and obtain some change.
  I wrote to the chief education officer in March. I quote his letter to me of 19 March:
  "In general the county council is unable to guarantee a place at one of the three preferred schools, although it is only a very small percentage of children who cannot be offered a place at any of their parents' preferences. In Lancashire"—
  Lancashire as a whole, not the Chorley area—
  "first preferences are up to 92.6 per cent., second preferences 3.5 per cent., third preferences 1.2 per cent., no preference 2.7 per cent.".
  The chief education officer confirms, however, that the information is not readily available for Chorley because it is held according to schools. I would ask that the first, second and third preferences be allocated on a postcode area basis. They should not really relate to schools; what matters is where parents live, as shown by their postcodes. They should be given the preferences that they want.
  Parental choice is paramount. It is the policy that the Government for the past 17 years have proudly boasted and honoured. I greatly welcome the policies in yesterday's White Paper, which will allow more selection by schools. That in turn will permit a
  442
  50 per cent. increase in the intake of grant-maintained schools. I regret the fact that, a few years ago, the Government flirted with the idea of allowing more popular schools to expand, to the detriment of those that were less popular. The results can be seen in Chorley. All the schools there do well in the performance league tables, but several are more popular than others, and that gives rise to a larger number of preferences.
  I accept the difficulty for the county council, but it is not too much to ask that each child be allocated one of its first three preferences. One problem is that the local education authority changes the rules every two or three years. Three years ago, villages to the south and east, towards Bolton, were affected. Schools there with a history of working in conjunction with local families from the surrounding villages suddenly found that the ground rules had changed—and that the time for the appeals procedure, April to June, had already arrived.
  No one likes change; people like to know what the ground rules are. This year changes affecting the north and east of my constituency have been made. Is the LEA carrying out any consultation? I do not think it should just change the rules and then force the changes on heads, parents and children. That is quite wrong. The guidelines and policies should be transparent, and people must have their say. If they think the system fair, fine; if not, they should be able to make their views known through their elected representatives and then bring about change.
  Yesterday's White Paper stresses that some LEAs are defensive and try to protect their own methods of working. I am delighted to note that the Government intend to force much more education spending—as much as 95 per cent. of it—down to school level, and not allow LEAs such as Lancashire's to channel only 85 per cent. down to the schools. The more money is spent at school level, the better value for money we get and the more local the decision making will become. Thus, we shall get away from the red tape and bureaucracy that are so much a part of activities at county hall in Preston.
  I am not satisfied that the appeals procedure is entirely independent. I find it, for instance, unacceptable that heads are kept out of it. They should have a major input to appeals procedures, so perhaps the situation needs reviewing.
  I care very much about the children in my constituency, and I have found the county council unresponsive, uncaring and bureaucratic in its past dealings with allocations to Catholic and Church of England schools or to voluntary-aided schools. The council has defended its patch and released only the minimum amount of money to schools. It has unfairly given less money to areas such as South Ribble and Chorley than to other parts of the county. Therefore, I condemn its actions.
  However, I praise the efforts of the Education Ministers, particularly the Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate this evening. I commend the Secretary of State for yesterday's White Paper. It is the vision for the future. The future is our children. What could be more important than ensuring that they get to the schools that they want and choose in their

  443
  preferences? My key question is: is it possible for the Minister to force Lancashire to honour at least one of the three preferences?
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) for raising this subject in the Adjournment debate and for allowing me to contribute to it. Consistently, Lancashire Conservative Members of Parliament have led the fight for the protection and development of education in the county of Lancashire, in the face of what can be described only as the inept administration of the Labour party in county hall. The Department for Education and Employment has received many letters from Lancashire Conservative Members of Parliament about the administration of Lancashire's education authority.
  My hon. Friend has raised yet another example of the council's bungling. Over the years, parents have visited my surgery because they have been extremely upset about the fact that their first choice, and sometimes their second choice, of school has not been acceded to—I am sure that most hon. Members have experienced this.
  One understands the pressures. One understands that, as a result of Conservative education policy over the years, we are developing some good schools. For example, I refer to Leyland, St. Mary's in my constituency—it has become a grant-maintained school. It has been extremely successful and a lot of parents want to send their children there.
  As my hon. Friend said, across the constituency boundaries of South Ribble and Chorley, parents in South Ribble are being offered schools in Chorley, and parents in Chorley are being offered schools in South Ribble. That is unacceptable because it is inconvenient. As my hon. Friend said, we are concerned at the apparent lack of care and attention—particularly in the area of appeals—that has been given to our constituents and to their children. I have had parents and children visit my surgery because of the way that this matter has been dealt with—some have been in tears.
  I join my hon. Friend in seeking to press the Minister to listen to the pleas of Lancashire Conservative Members of Parliament. We are speaking out, yet again, for the schools, for the children, for the parents and for the teachers—for those who share our concern about education.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) on his success in securing the Adjournment debate and on raising this subject. I also thank him for allowing me to contribute to the debate. The Lancashire education authority has priority for places at Turton school in my constituency. That popular school is over-subscribed. I am concerned about the Bolton education authority's policy of not giving priority to sibling links. It is a grossly anti-family policy, and it causes considerable distress.
  This week, I wrote to Mr. Jackson of the Bolton education authority about one particular case. I said:
  "I understand that Robert is very distressed at not being able to go to the same school as his sister and his friends, after attending Eagley Junior school in Bromley Cross all his life. I
  444
  believe Robert's GP has written to advise you of the stressful effect this is having on Robert, and I fully support any request that Robert be reconsidered for Turton."
  I would be grateful if the Minister used her influence to ask the Bolton education authority to reconsider its policy. Few education authorities do not give priority to sibling links. I believe that there is considerable support throughout the constituency, and throughout the other parts of Bolton, for a change in policy so that priority can be given to sibling links. We wish to avoid the stressful situation where one sibling goes to one school, but another sibling is unable to go to the same school. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the issue her consideration.
  10.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) for raising his concerns, and I shall do my best to respond to him and to the concerns raised, rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). I know from the amount of correspondence that I receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley that he takes a close interest in education matters, on which he works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents.
  We have of course come a long way since 1979, when parents had no right to specify their preferred choice of school. Schools could be half empty, but parents still might not have been offered a place for their child, and they had no right to appeal against the decision on where their child was to be educated.
  The Government gave parents the right to express a preference for a school. We required admission authorities to satisfy that preference unless the pupil did not meet the religious or selective entry requirements. We later introduced legislation that required schools to admit up to their standard number or any higher admission limit that was set. Admission authorities could no longer keep spare places at popular schools to safeguard less popular ones. If a school had spare places, eligible pupils had to be admitted.
  Not only did we strengthen the initial admissions process for parents, but we strengthened their right of appeal. All appeal committees must now contain a lay member, and representatives of the admission authority cannot be in the majority. Parents now have more confidence that their appeals will be heard by an independent and impartial panel that will carefully weigh up the needs of the child against the implications for the school.
  Parents now have more rights, more information, and access to a wider choice of different schools under a Conservative Government than ever before. The Government have tried to remove the artificial barriers which, in the past, have all too often stood in the way of parental choice. Evidence suggests that some 90 per cent. of first-choice applications are successful, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has voiced his concerns about the admission arrangements in place in Lancashire, and especially the problems that his constituents have faced in getting their children into a school of their choice.
  It is never easy when popular schools are over-subscribed, as I know has been the case for a number of schools in Chorley. The Government firmly believe

  445
  that responsibility for admissions rightly lies with admission authorities, and that admission arrangements should be determined at local level. Admission authorities are able to respond directly to the wishes and needs of parents and pupils.
  That said, we expect admission authorities—the local education authority in the case of county and controlled schools, and the governing body in the case of voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools—to determine arrangements that are clearly and accurately described, so that parents can judge the chances of gaining a place for their child at the school before expressing their preference. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley will pass on to his education authority the requirement for arrangements to be expressed clearly.
  Lancashire local education authority is responsible for determining the admission arrangements for its schools, following an annual consultation with the governors of schools. During that consultation, the governors, if they wish, can propose changes to the school's arrangements for admission. Such proposals may include a change to the over-subscription criteria, or may suggest an increase in the school's admission number for that year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is right to highlight the problems that can arise when admission authorities change admission arrangements without adequate consultation or notification. He will wish to know that yesterday my Department issued a revised circular on admissions that provides up-to-date guidance on admissions, and explains the basic principles that the Government consider important in the management of school admissions, including local determination, diversity, clarity, consultation and co-ordination. But it is for the authority to finalise arrangements, after taking into account any views put forward by governors, and to set out the admissions policy, giving the number of places available at the school and the criteria to be used in the case of over-subscription.
  In the case of county and controlled schools, Lancashire LEA gives priority to first-preference applications. In cases of over-subscription, the authority considers first those applications with sibling links, then those with medical, social or welfare reasons, and finally the admission authority allocates the remaining places with reference to the distances between the home and the parents' first-preference school and between the home and the nearest alternative school at which a place is available.
  Lancashire LEA must allocate places in accordance with the published arrangements for its schools. It is, of course, unfortunate that, when a school is over-subscribed—as was the case with Parklands High school—some parents may not receive a place, as the school can be filled with pupils with higher priority for places.
  I have looked into the situation that has arisen in Lancashire. It seems that the authority received more than 270 first-preference and an additional 260 second-preference applications for 206 places at Parklands High. Southlands High was also over-subscribed, with 169 first and 127 second-preference applications for only 187 places. A voluntary-aided school, St Michael's—with which my hon. Friend will be familiar—was also over-subscribed with applications.
  446
  I understand from the authority that a number of parents in the Eccleston area in particular who expressed a first preference for Parklands were not offered a place, as they live closer to another school, Bishop Rawstorne CE school. In applying its admission criteria, the authority was unable to give them priority for the available places. However, those parents were allocated places at the school of their second choice.
  I am also aware of the difficulties that some parents who live in the north-east of Chorley have faced in obtaining a place at Parklands. Again, that appears to be because they live closer to another school, Albany, which still has places available. I understand that the authority is in discussion with those parents about alternative places for their children.
  There is also a question over the number of pupils that Parklands can accommodate. The governors of the school can, of course, place a formal request with the authority to publish a higher admission limit. If the authority refuses to comply with that request, it is open to the governors to make an application to the Secretary of State for an increase in the school's standard number.
  I hear my hon. Friend's plea to ensure that parents receive at least one of their three preferences. In the allocations to Chorley schools this year, only 4.5 per cent. of parents—including those who applied from outside the area—have not received a place at a school for which they expressed a preference. Of those, nine parents live in the Chorley area. Unfortunately, it is never possible to guarantee places where many more parents have expressed a preference for a school than there are places available.
  When parents are unsuccessful in gaining a place, they may wish to exercise their right to appeal to independent appeal committees. Appeal committees offer parents an important second chance, and they must consider any appeal in light of the evidence available and on the merits of the case before them.
  I turn now to the case of Mrs. Finney, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East referred. I understand that Mrs. Finney's son, Robert Rogerson, was unable to get into the school she chose—Turton school. I ask my hon. Friend to ask Mrs. Finney whether she wishes to approach the LEA to place Robert Rogerson on the waiting list for Turton school. I understand, and sympathise with, his constituent's problem.
  About 40 per cent. of appeals are successful. I believe that, through that route, several parents have been successful in gaining places at schools for which they expressed a preference. Although I stress that I appreciate the deep disappointment that parents feel when they are unsuccessful in gaining a place at a school of their choice, the number of such parents remains small. However, it is a significant issue for the parents concerned.
  But the Government have shown that they are committed to extending parental choice by the steps that they have taken, which have ensured that as many parents as possible receive their first choice of school for their children. Indeed, I was glad to receive the warm welcome from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley for the White Paper that was published yesterday, which is another step forward and another plan in an excellent education policy that will provide choice for parents—more choice, and choice where there is none.

  447
  Finally, I shall take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who expressed concern. My right hon. Friend often speaks out on behalf of his constituents, and I understand his heartfelt plea about the way in which the LEA is managed. I hope that I can throw a little light on the problems that my right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned.
  Both will wish to know that, thanks not least in part to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, the new chief education officer in Lancashire, who was
  448
  appointed in January 1996, is currently seeking views from schools in the area about how their admission arrangements could be improved. I think that that is proof that the representations that Members of Parliament make in this place can make a difference, and I look forward to hearing the successful review of the admission arrangements in Lancashire.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0–£999, (2) £1,000–£9,999, (3) £10,000–£49,999, (4) £50,000£99,999, (5) £100,000–£499,999, (6) £500,000–£999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34153]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Compliance Cost Assessment
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34152]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government require a compliance cost assessment to be prepared for all legislative proposals which affect business or charities. Departments must consult small businesses about the impact of the proposal on them, and the results must be shown in the CCA. Full details of the arrangements for carrying out a CCA are set out in "Checking the Cost of Regulation: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment", a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make an announcement on the progress of the sale of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency. [34972]

  Mr. Freeman
  The House was informed on 23 November last year that it was the Government's intention to sell the Occupational Health and Safety Agency as a single viable business in a way which would ensure that it retained its reputation for the provision of high-quality occupational health services to Government Departments and the wider public sector while allowing it to benefit from the freedom and opportunities for attracting new customers to be gained outside the constraints of operating within Government.
  120
  A large number of expressions of interest were received following the advertisement of the sale in May this year. These have subsequently been reduced through an indicative bid procedure. A final shortlist of four has now been selected. Those being invited to submit final bids are:

  Occupational Health Care (OHC)

  Healthcall Group PLC

  Facilities Services Group

  BMI Healthcare.

  I believe that this shortlist will lead to final bids which maximise the prospects of securing good long-term value for money for the Government and taxpayer while meeting the objectives set for the sale of the business.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose an amendment to the immigration rules in order to continue leave to take employment for a migrant who, having had leave to remain and work in the United Kingdom, applies in good time for a renewal of that leave and make interim provision for the period between the expiry of the old leave and any grant or refusal of new leave. [33319]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No amendment is necessary. The Variation of Leave Order 1976 provides that, when a person applies for an extension of stay before the expiry of his leave, the conditions attached to that leave continue until the application is resolved.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce who will be deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. [35047]

  Mr. Howard
  The Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. Justice Michael Harrison to serve as the deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. This appointment is effective until 31 December 1999.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34127]

  Mr. Howard
  The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessments(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34130]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer to the written answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster setting out the Government's requirements for the preparation of compliance cost assessments.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34131]

  Mr. Streeter
  Details of every contract let by the Department are not held in central registers and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, analysis of the 617 contracts awarded in 1995–96 which are held in central registers is as follows:

  (a) £100,611

  (b) (i) £42

  (b) (ii) £24 million

  (c) (1) 55

  (c) (2) 219

  (c) (3) 219

  (c) (4) 51

  (c) (5) 58

  (c) (6) 8

  (c) (7) 7

  (d) 617.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new Government of Sierra Leone concerning the restoration of human rights in that country and the bringing to justice of those guilty of the violation of human rights in that country. [24055]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are encouraging the civilian Government to carry forward the process of political reform and are giving support for good governance projects in areas such as the police and judiciary.
  122

  Orphans (HIV)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been allocated to programmes addressing the care and support of orphaned children in countries affected by the HIV epidemic. [34443]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA does not provide funds specifically for the development of institutional care for children orphaned by HIV-AIDS, but prefers to support work which enables communities themselves to care for people affected by HIV-AIDS. Examples of this approach include ODA funding for a home-based care training programme in Chingola, Zambia and for an AIDS education, prevention and community care programme in Kenya. Through its grants to UNICEF, the ODA contributes to similar projects being implemented throughout the developing world. The percentage of ODA bilateral and multilateral resources applied exclusively to the care of orphans is not calculable.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the visits he has made to Wales to carry out official duties and (b) the dates of those visits. [34417]

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited Wales on official business on the following occasions since I became Prime Minister:

  14 June 1991

  20 September 1991

  3–4 September 1992

  11 June 1993

  28 October 1994

  13–14 June 1996

  In addition to these, I have visited Wales on a number of other occasions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Serjeant at Arms Office
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects that the recommendations arising from the survey into the Serjeant at Arms Office will be implemented. [34669]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee has not been directly involved in the Serjeant at Arms' survey, but any matters that fall within its areas of responsibility are being considered as soon as they are brought to the attention of the Committee.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by her Department (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded (c) the

  123
  number of contracts with a value of (1) £0–£999, (2) £1,000–£9,999, (3) £10,000–£49,999, (4) £50,000£99,999, (5) £100,000–£499,999, (6) £500,000–£999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34157]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information on contracts is not readily available in the detail and format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by her Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34156]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antartica
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what controls are in place to protect the Antarctic environment from contamination; and what are the penalties for breaches of those controls. [34429]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Provisions to protect the Antarctic environment are to be found in various treaties, including the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty (1991), the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter (1972), the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (1973/1978) and the Basel convention on the control of transboudnary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (1989). The Antarctic Act 1994 implements the environmental protocol. The maximum penalty for offences under the Act is an unlimited fine and/or two years imprisonment.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce measures to insulate the BBC World Service from the effects of the proposed reorganisation of the BBC. [33451]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department has received assurances from the BBC that the quality of World Service programmes will be unaffected by the proposed new arrangements, that clear separation between the grant in aid funded World Service and the BBC's other activities will be maintained, and that we will be fully consulted on the implications of the proposals for the World Service.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34122]
  124
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34123]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department does not have the information available in the form requested and could provide it only at disproportionate cost.

  European Union
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's policy of non-co-operation with European Union partners. [32618]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: The Government have ended its policy of non-co-operation, having secured their two objectives of an end to the ban on beef derivatives and agreement on a clear framework for lifting the wider ban. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House on 24 June, non-co-operation was the decisive factor in ensuring this result in such a short space of time.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Single Electricity Market
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the United Kingdom Government supports the Italian presidency text of the Commission directive on the European single electricity market. [34350]

  Mr. Eggar
  At the Energy Council of 20 June, which I attended, political agreement was reached on a proposal for a Council directive to liberalise electricity markets based on the Italian presidency text. Although the agreement falls short of what the United Kingdom was seeking, it represents an important first step in the opening of the electricity market in the European Union. The United Kingdom, Netherlands and Finland entered a minutes statement regretting that the agreed text did not provide a greater degree of initial market opening and a shorter timetable. That statement also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the directive led to equivalent economic effects in the member states.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000

  125
  to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34139]

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34138]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if every application for his Department's regional selective assistance is(a) considered and (b) offered by DTI regional offices; if the value of the grant determines whether central or regional offices are responsible for the granting of this financial assistance; what other reasons require responsibilities to change between offices; and if he will make a statement. [30029]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Government offices in the regions normally appraise applications for regional selective assistance up to the value of £2 million with the advice of regional boards. Applications above this level are appraised in headquarters. All offers of £1 million or more are subject to ministerial approval.

  Applications for RSA may be considered by another regional board in certain circumstances, for example, where there is a potential conflict of interest.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34128]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In practice, my Department is responsible for few, if any, legislative measures of relevance to small firms.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to
  126
  £499,999 (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34129]

  The Attorney-General
  Information for the Departments and agencies for which I am responsible is provided on the basis of such information as is readily available and is as follows1

  Question

  Crown Prosecution Services

  (a)

  £122,227

  (b) (i)

  £10,312

  (b) (ii)

  £2,862,589

  (c) (3)

  77

  (c) (4)

  20

  (c) (5)

  10

  (c) (6)

  4

  (c) (7)

  4

  (d)

  115

  Treasury Solicitor's Department2

  (a)

  £41,122

  (b) (i)

  £230

  (b) (ii)

  £560,000

  (c) (1)

  2

  (c) (2)

  14

  (c) (3)

  13

  (c) (4)

  2

  (c) (5)

  2

  (c) (6)

  1

  (c) (7)

  0

  (d)

  34

  Serious Fraud Office: The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  1Estimated values are given where the total value of a contract was not known at the time the contract was awarded.

  2Does not include service level agreements with other Crown bodies.

TREASURY

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31390]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Details of the costs and numbers of staff recruited by the Chancellor's Departments and executive agencies are given in the following table:

  Recruitment expenses by Chancellor's Departments and their Executive Agencies

  Department

  Number of staff recruited

  Recruitment costs (£)

  1994–95 financial year

  HM Treasury

  13

  64,625

  HM Customs and Excise

  455+34 fixed term appointments

  283,000

  HM Inland Revenue

  1,310

  444,037

  Office for National

  Statistics

  68

  202,388

  127

  Recruitment expenses by Chancellor's Departments and their Executive Agencies

  Department

  Number of staff recruited

  Recruitment costs (£)

  Department for National Savings

  35 including 8 short term appointments

  39,961 including 2,931 short term appointments

  Royal Mint

  55

  14,750

  PAYMASTER

  6

  58,648

  1995–96 financial year

  HM Treasury

  19

  263,978

  HM Customs and Excise

  625+154 fixed term appointments

  199,000

  HM Inland Revenue

  2,428

  420,367

  Office for National Statistics

  79

  82,274

  Department for National

  Savings

  16

  12,481

  Royal Mint

  57

  18,892

  PAYMASTER

  7

  10,420

  1. The figures for HM Inland Revenue include the Valuation Office Agency.

  2. The large difference in the recruitment costs between one year and the next for HM Treasury is a result of payments for staff recruited in 1994–95 being paid in 1995–96.

  3. Recruitment costs include direct payments for services, recruitment advertising and administrative costs.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31405]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information requested for the Chancellor's departments and agencies is given in the table:

  Use of Executive Search agencies and employment companies by Chancellor's Departments and their Executive Agencies

  Department

  Agency

  Number of recruits

  Costs (£)

  1994–95

  HM Treasury

  RAS

  13

  64,625

  HM Customs and Excise

  Paul

  Goodman

  6

  23,000

  RAS

  scheme 1

  3

  9,282

  RAS

  scheme 2

  1

  13,159

  HM Inland Revenue

  MSL International Ltd.

  2

  30,000

  Office for National Statistics

  RAS

  12

  100,503

  Department for National

  Savings

  BNA

  1

  1,550

  Royal Mint

  nil

  nil

  nil

  PAYMASTER

  RAS

  scheme 1

  1

  26,293

  RAS

  scheme 2

  2

  28,697

  1995–96

  HM Treasury

  RAS

  19

  263,978

  128

  Use of Executive Search agencies and employment companies by Chancellor's Departments and their Executive Agencies

  Department

  Agency

  Number of recruits

  Costs (£)

  HM Customs and Excise

  Paul

  Goodman

  7

  24,000

  RAS

  scheme 1

  2

  4,844

  RAS

  24+1 fixed term

  scheme 2

  appointment

  2,468

  HM Inland Revenue

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Office for National Statistics

  RAS. GSS Korn Ferry

  International

  23

  53,484

  Department for National

  Savings

  BNA

  nil

  436

  Royal Mint

  nil

  nil

  nil

  PAYMASTER

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Inland Revenue includes the Valuation Office Agency. The £436 for the Department for National Savings is for a six week extension to a 1994–95 contract.

  RAS: Recruitment and Assessment Services.

  GSS: the Government Statistical Service.

  BNA: British Nurses Association.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33454]

  Mrs. Knight
  Costs incurred by the Treasury over each of the past five years for compensation paid to employees or their families, or members of the public as a result of minor injuries related to the work of the Department are as follows:

  1991: £3,270

  1992: Nil

  1993: £1,500

  1994: Nil

  1995: Nil

  No major or fatal injuries occurred during this period. Sick pay costs are deducted from the compensation awarded; therefore, no sick pay costs were incurred.

  No compensation claims involved information technology or expenditure of more than £5,000.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33455]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, significant sums have been spent maintaining buildings, furniture and equipment to acceptable standards, including measures to meet health and safety requirements. Expenditure in the Treasury has included the removal of asbestos; the provision of new furniture and replacement lighting to comply with the
  129
  Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992; and the installation of fire detection equipment to meet current fire standards.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33453]

  Mrs. Knight
  The table gives the number of injuries suffered by staff in the Treasury, HM Customs and Excise, the Office for National Statistics, Paymaster, the Valuation Office and the Royal Mint in each of the past five years.

  19911

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Minor injuries

  697

  1,376

  1,293

  21460

  579

  3

  6

  5

  2

  4

  Fatal injuries

  31

  —

  41

  —

  51

  Of the minor injuries the following were IT related:

  3

  5

  2

  1

  nil

  1 Data for Customs and Excise for 1991 and 1995 are unavailable.

  2 Two injuries involved electric shocks from computer equipment in Customs and Excise.

  3 A maintenance fitter working for the Royal Mint suffered head injuries whilst carrying out work on factory Customs plant.

  4 Customs Officer fell into the hold of a ship whilst undertaking a search of the vessel

  5 A transport operator working for the Royal Mint was killed when his fork-lift truck overturned.

  The Inland Revenue does not maintain comparable information. However, records of claims for compensation for upper limb disorder (RSI) injuries directly related to information technology are as follows:

  1991: 20

  1992: 24

  1993: 41

  1994: 43

  1995: 47

  The Inland Revenue also had one fatality over this five-year period; a member of staff working in the Saphire Plaza building in Reading contracted Legionnaires' disease. The Health and Safety Executive was involved in an investigation.

  Price Competitiveness (Manufacturers)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect of the present level of real interest rates on the price competitiveness of British manufacturers on overseas markets. [34481]

  Mrs. Knight
  Real interest rates are one of many factors which may have an effect on the price competitiveness of British exports of manufactures.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the deficit in balance of trade with Germany between 1993 and the first quarter of 1996; what assessment he has made of the reasons; and what was the change in United Kingdom manufacturing output and jobs as a result. [34480]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The change in the deficit on trade in goods with Germany from the first quarter of 1996, compared to an average per quarter in 1993 was £0.7 billion. This is not surprising as, since 1993, the UK economy has grown faster than the German economy, and import prices have risen more than export prices. There is no simple relationship between manufacturing output and employment and the balance of trade with Germany.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on output and the number of jobs lost in United Kingdom manufacturing of the deficit in trade in manufactures. [34479]

  Mrs. Knight
  There is no simple relationship between manufacturing output and employment and the balance of trade in manufactures.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contracts awarded (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0–£999, (2) £1,000£9,999, (3) £10,000–£49,999, (4) £50,000–£99,999, (5) £100,000–£499,999, (6) £500,000–£999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34147]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is given in the table:

  (a) Average value of contracts

  £8,777

  (b) (i) smallest contract

  £6.38

  (ii) largest contract

  £2.6 million

  (c)(l)£0–£999

  785 contracts

  (2) £l,000–£9,999

  323

  (3) £10,000–£49,999

  67

  (4) £50,000–£99,999

  25

  (5) £100,000–£499,999

  10

  (6) £500,00–£999,999

  0

  (7) above £1,000,000

  2

  (d) Total contracts

  1,212

  Mrs. A. McHale
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury Solicitors will be able to provide the legal advice requested by the Ministry of Defence in February in the case of Mrs. A. McHale of Catford SE6. [34084]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: The Department for National Savings, not the Ministry of Defence, sought the advice of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. Advice has now been given.

ENVIRONMENT

  Habitat II Conference
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the UN Habitat II conference in Istanbul. [33450]

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom played an active and positive role at the United Nations conference on human settlements. I led the UK delegation and also played an active part as a member of the UN Secretary-General's international advisory group for the conference. A new basis for policy was established, in which urban areas are seen not as a threat to the environment but as the environment for an increasing majority of people.

  The United Kingdom report prepared for the conference was very well received. It served as a sound basis for our contribution to the negotiation of the habitat agenda, which is the main output of the conference. This sets out a comprehensive framework which can be used by all those who are responsible for achieving the two objectives considered by the conference—adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development. It also reaffirms the right to housing. We also contributed to the drafting of the "Istanbul declaration", the statement of

  Applicant

  File ref.

  Project title

  Decision

  Date

  Grant Approved

  Cumbria Tourist Board

  EUR/611/503/1/NW

  Tourist Market Forecast

  F

  13 May 1996

  20,000.00

  North Pennine Heritage Trust

  EUR/557/501/1/NW

  Rampgill Visitor Centre

  F

  13 February1996

  78,745,00

  Carlisle College

  EUR/606/501/1/NW

  Rural Flexitech

  F

  1 May 1996

  8,098,00

  Voluntary Action Cumbria

  EUR/586/501/1/NW

  Rural Resource Centre

  F

  25 October 1995

  32,809,00

  Alston Town Hall Trustees

  NW3878EUR

  Alston Town Hall Multi Purpose Centre, Project Co-ordinator

  F

  21 May 1996

  4,545.50

  Voluntary Action Cumbria

  NW39125EUR

  Rural Comm Support Obj 5B Area Cumbria

  F

  29 January 1996

  104,604.00

  Kendal College

  EUR/631/501/2/NW

  Encouragement of Enterprise to Develop Existing SME's

  F

  11,594.00

  Carlisle College

  EUR/606/501/2/NW

  Vocational Training & Upskilling in Key Skills req. by SME's

  F

  35,028.00

  Newton Rigg College

  EUR/556/510/2/NW

  Upskilling Supervisors in the Food Business

  F

  6,242.00

  Newton Rigg College

  EUR/556/511/2/NW

  Training and Assessment Skills for Small Businesses

  F

  1,530.00

  Cumbria TEC

  EUR/518/507/2/NW

  Appleby Training Centre

  F

  12,626.00

  Cumbria TEC

  EUR/518/506/2/NW

  Graduate/Redundant Manager Placement Scheme

  F

  16,830.00

  Cumbria TEC

  EUR/518/503/2/NW

  Rural Business Skills Training

  F

  11,857.00

  Cumbria TEC

  EUR/518/502/2/NW

  Improving Competitiveness of SME's through Training

  F

  17,046.00

  Cumbria TEC

  EUR/518/501/2/NW

  Rural Self-Employment Start-Up/scheme

  F

  14,994.00

  TEED

  EUR/73/506/2/NW

  Cumbria TEC—Business Start-up

  F

  14,647.00

  TEED

  EUR/73/505/2/NW

  Cumbria TEC—Construction Training

  F

  52,008.00

  TEED

  EUR/73/503/2/NW

  Cumbria TEC—Business Administration Training

  F

  6,174.00

  132
  political will to implement the habitat agenda, that underlines the need for a partnership approach and support for local action.

  This was the first major UN conference where local authorities, UK representatives prominent among them, played a key role. In the UK, the conference consolidated a constituency of Government, local authorities and nongovernmental organisations interested in formulating sustainable human settlements policies. The local agenda 21 process, will be the primary vehicle for Habitat II follow-up. The Government's round table and panel on sustainable development will also have an important robe.

  I have placed a copy of my speech in the Library of the House.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of applications for objective 5b grants in Cumbria; and if he will provide a list of approvals and the sums involved. [34241]

  Mr. Curry
  To date, there have been 25 formal offers for objective 5b grants in Cumbria, totalling £2,678,500. A full schedule of these approvals and sums involved is given.
  133

  Applicant

  File ref.

  Project title

  Decision

  Date

  Grant Approved

  TEED

  EUR/73/502/2/NW

  Cumbria TEC—Modern Apprenticeship Programme

  F

  11,587.00

  East Cumbria Countryside Project

  NW40208EUR

  East Cumbria Environmental Action Programme

  F

  29 February 1996

  95,550.00

  Cumbria CC

  NW40216EUR

  Made in Cumbria (Revenue)

  F

  26 March 1996

  32,000.00

  Cumbria CC

  NW40219EUR

  Birdsoswald Roman Fort— Feasibility Study (Rev)

  F

  22 February 1996

  5,000.00

  The National Trust

  NW40206EUR

  Upland Access: Langdale Valley

  F

  15 March 1996

  28,558.00

  Alston Town Hall Trustees

  NW40222EUR

  Alston Town Hall Multi-Purpose Community Centre

  F

  21 May 1996

  56,462.76

  Sum

  678,535.26

  Cumbria County Council

  NW39818EUR

  "Hills of the North"

  F

  31 May 1996

  2,000,000

  Total

  £2,678,535.26

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of outputs claimed for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 by region. [34506]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The annual report of the Department, Cm 3207, gives the latest information about outputs from the Department's programmes, broken down where appropriate by region. Final figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what leverage was achieved by region against expenditure broken down into contributions by(a) the private sector, (b) the public sector, (c) European Union funding and (d) other, in the financial year in 1995–96. [34394]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest information about financial expenditure on the Department's programmes is set out in the Department'sAnnual Report Cm 3207. Where possible, this is broken down by region. Final figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will(a) undertake a survey of all public buildings and (b) maintain a database to indicate the presence and location of asbestos in the United Kingdom and if he will make a statement. [33650]

  Mr. Clappison
  A survey of asbestos in public buildings will not be undertaken. Instead, Government Departments are working together to raise public awareness of the risks of exposure to asbestos and the need for sound management of asbestos materials in all buildings. The Department of the Environment gives advice on surveying buildings for asbestos and its subsequent management within the guidance document "Asbestos Materials in Buildings", which was first published in 1983 and has been regularly updated. This guidance is aimed at building owners, managers and local authorities. The Health and Safety Executive also issues guidance to owners and employers on the management of asbestos in buildings. It advises that employers should locate, identify and keep a record of all asbestos in their premises and ensure that all workers/contractors who are likely to work on it are aware of its presence.
  134
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if asbestos may still be used for gutters; and if he will make a statement. [33651]

  Mr. Clappison
  White asbestos incorporated into asbestos cement may still be used to make gutters. In practice, other materials are now more commonly used.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current permitted uses for asbestos in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [33652]

  Mr. Clappison
  The use of asbestos in the United Kingdom is controlled by the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992 and the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993. These regulations prohibit the marketing and use of all forms of amphibole asbestos, which includes blue and brown asbestos, and many uses of white, chrysotile, asbestos. Further limitations on the use of white asbestos are contained within the Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985. Uses of white asbestos which are not specified in any of these regulations are permitted, although in practice the most common use is in asbestos cement and heavy bearing materials such as gaskets.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the use of asbestos for gutters. [33653]

  Mr. Clappison
  No assessment has been made specifically of the use of asbestos in gutters. However, a more general assessment of the uses of, and exposure to, asbestos in the non-workplace environment is currently being performed on behalf of this Department. The results of this work will be published early next year.

  Albert Dock, Merseyside
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the Albert Dock Management Co. has carried out repairs to the apartments overlooking the River Mersey since December 1988; and if he will make a statement. [33895]
  135
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Albert Dock Management Co. is not responsible for carrying out repairs to apartments. That responsibility falls on the occupiers. The Albert Dock Management Co. is responsible for the common parts and the structure.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current service charges levied by the Albert Dock management; what assessment he has made of the value for money provided; and if he will make a statement. [33896]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The service charge at the Albert dock for the Colonnades residential units covers a range of services including 24-hour security, insurance—including terrorism insurance—all repairs to common parts, the cleaning and decoration of common parts, refuse collection, all structural repairs and a contribution to the overall management of the external areas around Albert dock. The service charge account is audited on an annual basis and certified in accordance with the leasehold interest of each resident and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The level of the service charge is a private and confidential matter between the Albert Dock Management Co. and each individual tenant and it would be inappropriate for the information to be divulged.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who owned the land in the area of the Albert dock prior to the take over of the development corporation. [33897]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Co. owned Albert dock prior to its purchase by Merseyside development corporation in 1982.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations have been received by the(a) chief executive and (b) chairman of the Merseyside development corporation from (i) the Albert dock residents association and (ii) right hon. and hon. Members concerning the Albert Dock Management Co.; and if he will make a statement. [33898]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The chief executive of MDC has received eight letters from the Albert Dock residents association over the last two years and the chairman of the MDC has received five letters from the residents association. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside has written to the chairman on one occasion, 11 October 1995, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) wrote to the chairman on 21 February 1996 forwarding a letter from the Albert Dock residents association.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from residents of Albert dock concerning their future lease after the Merseyside development corporation ceases to exist; and if he will make a statement. [33925]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has received nine letters from residents of the Albert dock concerning both their future lease and other issues.
  136

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many development corporations are currently in existence; and how many have residential blocks within their grounds. [33899]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are nine development corporations in existence, of which six have residential blocks in their respective areas.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34149]

  Sir Paul beresford
  The information requested is riot held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Navigation
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the Government's conclusions on the review of the navigation functions of British Waterways and the Environment Agency; and what proposals the Government have to improve co-operation between navigation authorities and planning authorities. [34855]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department issued a consultation paper on 15 February 1995 reviewing the navigation functions of British Waterways and the Environment Agency—the latter were then the functions of the National Rivers Authority. The Government have considered the responses received to that consultation paper.

  The Government recognise that there is room for improvement in the way in which navigation authority arrangements operate but consider that there is no single, obvious, right answer everywhere regardless of local circumstances. The Government therefore support the initiative taken by British Waterways and the Environment Agency to pursue jointly a programme of studies examining individual navigations in consultation with users and others. The studies will examine the present arrangements and the options for change in administering navigation. The Government have asked them to make preliminary reports to Ministers by October 1996. The results of the studies will provide a solid basis for Government decisions on individual transfers of responsibility from one navigation authority to another.

  Meanwhile, the Government welcome and will encourage co-operation between British Waterways, the Environment Agency and other navigation authorities to draw better value from the waterway system and develop a more commercial approach and coherent strategy for development of inland waterways. Improvements will include streamlining licensing and charging and providing a better focus for marketing and customer representation.
  137
  The Government have published a paper setting out the results of the consultation exercise and the Government's conclusions and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government believe that planning authorities and navigation authorities should work together in the development of the waterways' potential benefits. The Government will shortly be issuing a consultation paper proposing that planning authorities should be under the statutory obligation to consult British Waterways where their navigations are affected by planning applications. This would give British Waterways the same status in the planning process as other statutory consultees such as the highway authority or the Environment Agency.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34148]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

TRANSPORT

  Domestic Air Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanism his Department uses to ensure that the public interest is protected against the dominance of one airline in the UK, with special reference to domestic services. [32794]

  Mr. Norris
  Under EC regulation 2409/92, the Secretary of State, having taken advice from the CAA, has powers to:(a) require a fare on an intra-EC route to be withdrawn where he considers that the fare is excessively high to the disadvantage of users in relation to costs; and
  (b) stop further reductions in air fares on an intra-EC route, if he considers that there has been sustained down movement in fares unrelated to costs, resulted in widespread losses among the air carriers operating on that route.

  The Director General of Fair Trading has powers to apply UK competition legislation in relation to domestic air services and does so with the assistance of the CAA.

  Where trade between member states is affected, EC competition law applies. Decisions on these cases are for the European Commission.

  UK Seafaring Skills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed publication date for his Department's study to assess the shore-based demand for United Kingdom seafaring skills; and if he will make a statement. [33337]

  Mr. Norris
  We will publish the document shortly.

  Traffic (Car Journeys)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of(a) all traffic and (b) traffic on motorways and trunk roads is represented by car journeys of under (i) two miles and (ii) five miles in length as shown in chart la of the document, "Transport: the Way Forward". [33303]

  Mr. Watts
  Data concerning journey length, as shown in the chart in 'Transport: the Way Forward', are derived from the national travel survey. This is a survey of personal travel only and does not, therefore, cover all road traffic. Neither does it identify the class of road used for personal journeys.

  The national traffic census gives estimates of total traffic by vehicle type and class of road. In 1995, cars and taxis accounted for 82 per cent. of traffic on all roads and 78 per cent. of traffic on motorways and trunk roads.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the pass and fail rate for (i) the car test, (ii) the light goods vehicle test and (iii) the passenger carrying vehicle test for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [34006]

  Mr. Norris
  The pass rates requested are:

  Percentage

  Test category

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Car

  46.9

  45.7

  LGV

  47.5

  47.0

  PCV

  50.0

  49.3

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the pass and fail rate for delegated examiners in(a) the private sector and (b) the Post Office for (i) the car test, (ii) the LGV test and (iii) the PCV test for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [34005]

  Mr. Norris
  The pass rates requested are:

  Percentage

  Test category

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Private sector

  Car

  80.5

  93.2

  PCV

  64.2

  62.2

  No LGV driving examiners have been appointed to private-sector companies. The car driving examiners that were appointed to private-sector companies have now retired, and there are no plans at present to appoint further ones.

  Percentage

  Test category

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (b)Post office

  Car

  52.7

  47.5

  The Post Office examiners have authority to conduct only care L-tests.
  139
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by LGV and PCV driving test centre the pass and fail rate for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [34007]

  Mr. Norris
  The pass and fail rates for LGV and for PCV tests by each test centre for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are given in the attached table.

  Driving test pass rates (as percentages)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Name of centre

  PCV tests

  LGV tests

  PCV tests

  LGV tests

  Aberdeen LGV

  63

  59

  67

  60

  Alvaston LGV

  39

  49

  49

  43

  Beverley LGV

  30

  35

  50

  24

  Bishopbriggs LGV

  61

  59

  54

  57

  Botley LGV

  56

  50

  59

  49

  Bredbury LGV

  46

  42

  39

  43

  Bristol LGV

  58

  51

  50

  51

  Caernarfon LGV

  68

  58

  59

  65

  Camborne LGV

  59

  54

  65

  57

  Cambridge LGV

  56

  59

  50

  50

  Canterbury LGV

  46

  41

  49

  41

  Carlisle LGV

  62

  60

  66

  59

  Chelmsford LGV

  39

  36

  46

  38

  Croydon LGV

  44

  45

  45

  43

  Culham LGV

  56

  68

  57

  69

  Darlington LGV

  42

  41

  42

  40

  Elgin LGV

  93

  70

  91

  66

  Enfield LGV

  39

  40

  46

  41

  Exeter LGV

  56

  51

  54

  49

  Featherstone LGV

  37

  42

  38

  39

  Galashiels LGV

  75

  76

  64

  72

  Garretts Green LGV

  38

  43

  42

  44

  Gillingham LGV

  44

  42

  37

  41

  Gloucester LGV

  43

  53

  46

  50

  Gosforth LGV

  47

  47

  49

  43

  Grimsby LGV

  40

  38

  27

  45

  Guildford LGV

  43

  55

  43

  50

  Harlescott LGV

  63

  64

  58

  61

  Hastings LGV

  48

  54

  60

  51

  Heywood LGV

  46

  41

  38

  34

  Inverness LGV

  53

  53

  57

  56

  Ipswich LGV

  60

  50

  52

  49

  Kilmarnock LGV

  48

  59

  58

  58

  Kirkham LGV

  62

  52

  63

  47

  Lancing LGV

  52

  48

  55

  47

  Leicester

  44

  45

  43

  46

  Leighton Buzzard LGV

  54

  54

  55

  54

  Livingston LGV

  62

  53

  57

  56

  Llantrisant LGV

  54

  49

  46

  48

  Neath LGV

  52

  53

  54

  53

  Norwich LGV

  50

  44

  51

  52

  Patrick Green LGV

  30

  33

  33

  31

  Perth LGV

  64

  66

  68

  69

  Peterborough LGV

  43

  50

  32

  43

  Plymouth LGV

  62

  58

  56

  57

  Pontypool LGV

  59

  53

  57

  50

  Poole LGV/PCV

  61

  60

  60

  60

  Purfleet LGV

  47

  39

  38

  43

  Reading LGV

  53

  51

  61

  54

  Rookley LGV

  74

  66

  62

  67

  Sheffield LGV

  45

  40

  57

  45

  Simmonswood LGV

  52

  47

  42

  42

  Steeton LGV

  44

  43

  30

  37

  Swynnerton LGV

  52

  59

  57

  58

  Taunton LGV

  53

  50

  49

  53

  Upton LGV

  41

  25

  34

  28

  Walton LGV

  32

  40

  36

  36

  Watnall LGV

  42

  37

  36

  37

  140

  Driving test pass rates (as percentages)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Name of centre

  PCV tests

  LGV tests

  PCV tests

  LGV tests

  Weedon LGV

  37

  43

  37

  43

  Wrexham LGV

  46

  47

  35

  43

  Yeading LGV

  43

  41

  40

  42

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the implementation of the theory test for LCVs, PCVs and motorcycles has been deferred; and if he will make a statement. [34008]

  Mr. Norris
  Theory testing for learning motorcyclists is being implemented 1 July 1996 as originally planned. Implementation of the theory tests for LGVs and PCVs has been deferred until 1 January 1997, giving more time to finalise outstanding issues and put in place the necessary legislation, and allow the road haulage, passenger transport and related training industries more opportunity to prepare for the changes.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the exemptions from the theory element of the driving test, the reasons for the exemptions and at what level the decision to exempt particular categories of vehicle was taken. [34009]

  Mr. Norris
  The following are the arrangements which we have agreed. There will be an exemption between tests to drive different categories of vehicle where this is justified by the content of the relevant theory tests.In view of the overlap of topics for theory test for cars and two-wheelers, a person holding a full licence for car driving will not have to take a theory test as a learner motorcyclist, or vice versa. A person holding a full moped licence obtained after 1 July will not have to take a theory test as a learner car driver or motorcycle rider.
  If a person obtains a full licence to drive a medium-sized lorry, he will not have to pass a further LGV theory test as pan of seeking a full licence to drive a large lorry. Similarly, if a person obtains a full licence to drive a minibus, he will not have to take a further PCV theory test as part of seeking a full licence to drive a bus or coach.
  A person will not have a take a separate theory test as part of the test to drive an articulated lorry or vehicle combinations.

  There will be an exemption where a further driving test has to be taken to lift a restriction to drive a vehicle within the same category. For example, a person holding a full car licence limited to automatic transmission in order to obtain in unrestricted car driving licence.

  There will be no separate theory test for the minor domestic licence categories where drivers will generally also be car drivers and can therefore demonstrate their knowledge within the car driving theory test. These categories are F (tractor), G (road roller), H (tracked vehicle) and K (pedestrian controlled vehicle), L (electrically powered vehicle) and N (vehicle excise duty exempt vehicle). Categories L and N are being dropped as test categories from 1 January 1997, and, from that date, candidates for tests for categories G and H must already hold a full car licence.

  A66 (Longnewton)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to issue compulsory purchase orders for land at Longnewton to construct the proposed A66 grade separated junction. [34318]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 25 June 1996:
  As you know the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when he intends to issue the Compulsory Purchase Orders for land at Long Newton to construct the proposed A66 grade separated junction.
  As you are aware, a Public Inquiry into the draft Orders for this scheme was held in September 1995. The Inspector's report is now being considered by Ministers and a decision is expected shortly.

  DoA Ltd. (Liabilities)
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 124, whether he intends to proceed with the guarantee to Strathclyde Passenger Transport in respect of the liabilities to it of DoA Ltd. [34991]

  Mr. Watts
  The guarantee was entered into by my Department on 17 May, and will have effect for so long as sums are payable under the terms of the deeds of assumption.

  European Passenger Services Ltd.
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations led him to enter into the guarantee, laid before the House on 20 May, covering the obligations of European Passenger Services Ltd. at Ashford International station. [34992]

  Mr. Watts
  When EPS was a subsidiary of the British Railways Board, BRB guaranteed to the developers of the new station at Ashford that EPS would pay rent for occupation of part of the station and a toll based on passenger numbers. After ownership of EPS passed from BRB to the Secretary of State, it made sense for the guarantee also to be transferred. The guarantee includes provision for its replacement in due course by the new owners of EPS.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations led him to enter into the guarantee, laid before the House on 20 May, in respect of leases of night stock by European Passenger Services Ltd. [34993]

  Mr. Watts
  When EPS was a subsidiary of the British Railways Board, BRB guaranteed leasing obligations for rolling stock to be used on overnight passenger services through the Channel Tunnel. After ownership of EPS passed from BRB to the Secretary of State, it made sense for the guarantee also to be transferred. The guarantee includes provision for its replacement in due course by the new owners of EPS.

  British Railways Board (Contingent Liabilities)
  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to give the British Railways Board the assurance proposed in the minute on the board's contingent liabilities laid before the House on 7 June. [34973]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. The British Railways Board's annual report and accounts 1995–96 are due to be published shortly. Before British Rail's auditors can approve them on a going concern basis, they must be satisfied that adequate funds will continue to be made available to meet any financial obligations arising from the Board's present or future liabilities or liabilities arising out of past transactions, events and circumstances. The provision of funds and expenditure by the British Railways Board will be subject to the procedures and controls indicated in the minute.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34141]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34140]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Central Railway Group
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 342, if statutory blight purchase notices served on Central Railway plc before the parliamentary debate to approve the company's scheme will be enforceable against the company after the debate is held and regardless of whether the House approves or rejects the motion. [33998]

  Mr. Watts
  A blight notice properly served in accordance with section 150 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will continue to be enforceable against Central Railway plc if the House passes a resolution approving the Central Railways proposals. If the House rejects the motion, the order applied for could not be made. The land would cease to be blighted from the date the application was withdrawn or I determined to reject the application.
  143
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33578]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: The information is not available for the period 1991–92 except at disproportionate cost. For the calendar years 1993 to 1996, the numbers of cases are as follows:

  Year

  Total

  1(a)

  2(b)

  3(c)

  4(d)

  Withdrawn

  Pending

  1993

  6

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1994

  14

  4

  1

  7

  0

  1

  1

  1995

  9

  5

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1996

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1 (a) = Department's decision upheld by the court.

  2 (b) = Court found for the applicant.

  3 (c) = Department submitted to the judgement.

  4 (d) = Department appealed against the decision.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33595]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: The information is not available for the period 1991–92 because information on judicial review cases in that period could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. No legislation has been introduced into Parliament by the Department of Transport from 1993 with the purposes mentioned in the question.

HEALTH

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the advice referred to from the Committee on Safety of Medicines was given under the requirement of the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations etc) Regulations 1994. [31912]

  Mr. Malone
  The Committee o
  n Safety of Medicines provides advice in accordance with its functions under the Medicines (Committee on Safety of Medicines) Order 1970 (No. 1257).

  Health Services, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss health services for Greater London. [33108]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Edgware and Barnet Hospitals
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed private finance initiative contract at Barnet hospital. [33618]

  Mr. Horam
  The first stage of the Barnet hospital redevelopment is already under way, and is being publicly funded. The proposed private finance initiative contract would be for the second stage. The trust has identified a preferred bidder, with whom it is discussing its requirements.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the planned land use at(a) Edgware hospital and (b) Barnet hospital under the proposed PFI contract at Barnet hospital. [33619]

  Mr. Horam
  Major redevelopments are planned at both Barnet and Edgware hospitals. All the land at Barnet hospital will continue to be required by the national health service. Plans for the future of Edgware hospital will allow some of the land at Edgware to be released. Any proceeds from land sales will be used to benefit the NHS.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of areas in England where people experience problems of gaining access to an NHS dentist. [33882]

  Mr. Malone
  There is no national problem of availability in national health service dentistry. There were 15,942 dentists on family health services authorities lists in December 1995, the highest December figure ever and 3,500 more than in 1979.

  Health authorities are generally able to put patients who contact them in touch with dentists who will treat them. Where necessary, the health authority can make use of the community dental service or apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint a salaried dentist. In April 1996, 140 salaried dentists were employed in England. In addition, health authorities will shortly be able to bid for funds from a new access fund for local schemes to improve accessibility to services.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have contacted each family health services authority or their equivalent asking for help in finding a dentist in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [34329]

  Mr. Malone
  This information was collected from July 1992 to March 1996. Information will be placed in the Library showing figures for the three full years available.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practitioners treating NHS patients were registered in each family health services authority or their equivalent for each of the last eight years. [34330]

  Mr. Malone
  Information will be placed in the library setting out the number of general dental practitioners on family health service authority lists in England.

  Unique Patient Numbers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an inquiry into the production of duplicate numbers under the NHS unique number project; and if he will make a statement. [33988]
  145
  Mr. Horam
  A study has already been carried out to establish the cause of the non-unique numbers, and to assess the best way of preventing their occurrence in future.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Human Organ Transplantation (Establishment of Relationship) Regulations 1989 (SI, 1989 No. 2107) to reflect current technology. [34324]

  Mr. Horam
  Consideration is being given to amending the Human Organ Transplants (Establishment of Relationship) Regulations 1989 to reflect developments in medical science and technology.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 352, concerning performance standards of emergency ambulance services set by contracts made by the district health authorities with providers, if he will take steps to collect information on the extent to which they comply with the national Orcon standards and the patients charter. [34086]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is collected to check the performance of each national health service ambulance service against Orcon and patient's charter standards. This information for 1995–96 is due to be published in a statistical bulletin on 2 July, and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the responsibilities for(a) the registration and (b) the inspection of children's homes which have fewer than four children, and which take in children entirely from outside the area of the social services authority in which they are located. [34090]

  Mr. Bowis
  Children's homes run by voluntary organisations are required to register with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and are inspected by the social services inspectorate irrespective of the numbers of children accommodated.

  The registration and inspection of small children's homes run by private organisations that provide accommodation for fewer than four children is being considered within the current review of the inspection and regulation of social services.

  Authorities placing children in those homes, as in any other homes, have a statutory duty under the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 to ensure that the homes are suitable and that they promote and safeguard the child's welfare. The Department of Health issued guidance to local authorities about the application of these regulations in LAC(93)16, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The local authority in which the home is situated has the duty to investigate, with a court order if necessary, any concerns that a child in such a home is at risk.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the financial implications of the closure of mental handicap hospitals in the north-west; and what resources are available to support those people who need residential care. [34106]

  Mr. Bowis
  The financial implications are in both revenue and capital requirements. The revenue budgets are identified for the hospitals and are made available for providing the support required for care within the community. Capital costs are funded from the capital resources allocated to health authorities.

  Care of Children
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health when Sir William Utting's report will be published. [34495]

  Mr. Bowis
  His recommendations will be made to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Wales as speedily as possible.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions are being taken by his Department to ensure that children are not working in breach of the current employment law. [33203]

  Mr. Bowis
  Enforcement of the law in this area is a matter for local authorities.

  Gynaecology
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of gynaecological beds in hospitals in(a) Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham and (b) England in each of the last 10 years. [34065]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not collected centrally on hospital beds by clinical specialty. The available information, by broad ward classification, is contained in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of(a) gynaecological out-patient clinics at hospitals, (b) women seen at each clinic and (c) women who went on to require day surgery or treatment as an in-patient in each of the last 10 years. [34066]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of out-patients clinics is not available centrally. Information on the number of out-patients attendances by clinical specialty is contained in "Outpatients and ward attenders for England". Information on the number of day case and ordinary admissions by clinical speciality is contained in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment and length of wait between initial appointment and surgery at each gynaecological clinic in England in the last 10 years. [34069]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  147
  Copies of "Waiting Times for First Out-patient appointments in England" are available in the Library. Information on the numbers waiting for in-patient admission for gynaecology is contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are also available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of doctors and consultants specialising in obstetrics and gynaecology in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [34070]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information requested is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical staff and consultants, obstetrics and gynaecology.

  All staff

  Consultants

  1985

  3,330

  770

  1986

  3,350

  790

  1987

  3,340

  790

  1988

  3,510

  800

  1989

  3,630

  840

  1990

  3,670

  860

  1991

  3,800

  860

  1992

  3,790

  880

  1993

  3,820

  910

  1994

  3,940

  950

  England and Wales. Figures for 30 September in each year, rounded to the nearest ten.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women attended accident and emergency departments with gynaecological problems and how many were admitted to hospital with acute gynaecological problems in each of the last 10 years. [34071]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available centrally on accident and emergency attendances by clinical speciality. The available information on accident and emergency attendances is contained in "Outpatients and ward attenders for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Information is collected centrally in the hospital episode system both for operations and diagnosis using specific codes. These include a large number of codes that might be described as "gynaecological". The available information is contained in "Hospital episodes statistics (Volume 1)", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists (Women)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women are currently waiting to be admitted to any waiting list for treatment as an in-patient or day case. [34068]

  Mr. Horam
  Waiting list information which is held centrally does not differentiate between genders.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 384, if he will set out the complex issues delaying the entry of general practitioner practice staff into the NHS pension scheme. [34265]
  148
  Mr. Malone
  Before the scheme could be extended to general practitioner practice staff, we need to consider the potential effect in actuarial terms of the increase in the scheme's overall liabilities; the appropriate scope of the scheme if made available to the employees of independent contractors rather than national health service staff; the appropriate employer's contribution rate for a new category of staff not employed by the NHS; as well as resourcing and streams of funding.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contain; a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34124]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave her today.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34125]

  Mr. Horam
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and/or toxic epidermal necrolysis have occurred in each of the last five years; and in respect of how many of these cases (a) paracetamol or codeine and (b) other drugs were assessed to be the cause. [33892]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: The information available centrally is shown in the table.

  The estimated numbers of finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions and day cases combined—in national health service hospitals in England with a principal diagnosis of erythema multiforme—which includes Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis—in each of the five years is as follows:

  1990–91: 821

  1991–92: 823

  1992–93: 843

  1993–94: 859

  1994–95: 1,148.

  Source:

  Hospitals Episode Statistics
  149
  An individual patient may be included more than once in the figures. The number of cases from these episodes which were assessed as being due to drugs is unknown. Various non-drug causes for erythema multiforme are well recognised.

  The Medicines Control Agency holds the following information relating to suspected adverse drug reactions reported through the voluntary yellow card scheme. These data have been mapped to two relevant preferred terms; erythema multiforme (EM)—which includes Stevens-Johnson syndrome—and epidermal necrolysis (EN). The numbers of reported cases for each of the last five years are shown.

  Suspected adverse reaction reports of erythema multiforme (EM) and epidermal necrolysis (EN) to the Committee on Safety of Medicines 1991 to 1995

  All reports where paracetamol and/or codeine were a suspect drug

  All reports involving drugs other than paracetamol and/or codeine

  Year

  EM

  EN

  EM

  EN

  1991

  2

  0

  112

  13

  1992

  4

  0

  145

  19

  1993

  0

  0

  139

  28

  1994

  0

  0

  138

  18

  1995

  1

  0

  174

  20

  Totals

  7

  0

  708

  98

  Some of the reports associated with paracetamol and/or codeine concerned products containing multiple active ingredients. The figures provided are for the number of suspected adverse drug reactions where the reaction began in the year specified. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug cited; other factors may have contributed.

  There are fewer cases of erythema multiforme reported to be associated with medicines than the number of cases from hospital statistics. Several factors account for this difference—one patient may account for more than one consultant episode, not all cases of erythema multiforme are drug-induced and not all adverse drug reactions are reported through the yellow card scheme. Therefore, direct comparisons between these two data sources cannot be made.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33506]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments the information is not available in the format requested. However the following information is available.
  150

  Year

  Compensation paid (£000s)

  1991–921

  4,959

  1992–93

  5,654

  1993–94

  6,483

  1994–95

  6,641

  1995–96

  4,742

  1 Excludes DOE employees liability claims.

  In the same five years, 538 payments of over £5,000 were paid and one case in 1993–94 related to information technology.

  The information on sick pay could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33505]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments, the information is not fully available in the format requested and to obtain this information would incur disproportionate cost. However all the available information follows.

  The figures relating to the Department of Finance and Personnel, of Environment, of Health and Social Services and to the Northern Ireland Prison Service are:

  Year

  Member of injuries

  Fatalities

  I.T. related injuries

  1991–921

  854

  —

  —

  1992–931

  878

  —

  —

  1993–94

  911

  —

  1

  1994–95

  696

  —

  —

  1995–96

  739

  1

  1

  1 Excludes DHSS. The fatality was a result of a hit and run accident during a road inspection.

  Those relating to the Departments of Economic Development, of Agriculture and of Education and the remainder of the Northern Ireland Office are:

  Year

  Number of injuries

  Fatalities

  I.T. related injuries

  19911

  300

  1

  —

  1992

  291

  —

  —

  1993

  299

  —

  —

  1994

  240

  —

  —

  1995

  200

  —

  —

  1 Excludes the Northern Ireland Office. The fatality was a result of a tree felling incident.

  School Staff
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances schools with similar enrolments may be unable to employ similar numbers of teaching staff under current financial arrangements; and what proposals he has to deal with this issue. [33875]
  151
  Mr. Ancram
  It is for the board of governors of each school with a delegated budget, irrespective of the size of the school's enrolment, to decide on the number of teaching staff it employs in order to ensure the effective delivery of the curriculum to its pupils. I do not propose to change this situation.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of teacher and lecturer redundancies made by education and library boards during each year since 1990 at(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) further education level. [33874]

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

  School Funding
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount in(a) cash and (b) constant price terms excluding funding for special projects was spent per primary and secondary pupil in Northern Ireland in each financial year since 1989. [33876]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 June,Official Report, column 662.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34132]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier today.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £5000,00 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34133]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Codes of Practice)
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish revised codes of practice for the detention, questioning and identification of those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision) Act 1989. [34937]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today laid before Parliament the draft codes of practice for the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland, as I am required to do by 152
  section 61(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. The codes have been amended to take into account comments received during the consultation exercise undertaken last year. I intend to make an order which will bring the codes into operation from midnight on 28 July 1996.

WALES

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [32334]

  Mr. Hague
  In the past three months I have visited the following constituencies while on official business:

  Aberavon

  Alyn and Deeside

  Brecon and Radnor

  Bridgend

  Cardiff, Central

  Cardiff, North

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  Cardiff, West

  Carmarthen

  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North

  Clwyd, North-West

  Clwyd, South-West

  Conwy

  Delyn

  Montgomery

  Neath

  Newport, East

  Newport, West

  Pembroke

  Pontypridd

  Rhondda

  Torfaen

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Wrexham

  Ynys Môn

  My plans for the next three months have not been finalised.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the capital investment in the existing wind farms in Wales. [32889]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The estimated capital outlay for existing wind farms in Wales is around £60,000,000. This is based on an average cost of £800 per kilowatt installed capacity.

  Infant and Perinatal Mortality Rates
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on trends in infant mortality and perinatal mortality rates; and if he will make a statement. [33167]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Infant and perinatal mortality rates for years from 1970 to 1995, provided by the Office for National Statistics, are shown in the following table:

  Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)

  Perinatal mortality rate (per 1,000 total births)

  1970

  18.7

  25.5

  1975

  14.5

  19.7

  1980

  11.4

  12.8

  1985

  9.8

  10.2

  1990

  6.9

  7.4

  1991

  6.6

  7.9

  1992

  6.0

  7.0

  1993

  5.6

  17.1{*B)

  28.4{*B}

  1994

  6.3

  9.3

  1995 provisional

  5.8

  7.9

  1 Old definition.

  2 New definition.

  The legal definition of a still birth was altered on 1 October 1992 to include babies born dead between 24 and 27 completed weeks' gestation. Perinatal mortality rates up to 1993 are shown in the table on the old definition—28 or more weeks' completed gestation—and from 1993 on the new definition—24 or more weeks' completed gestation.

  Smoking-related Illness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people died from smoking-related illness in 1993 and 1995; and if he will make a statement. [33166]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows.

  The specific category of smoking-related illness is not defined explicitly. Three diseases commonly caused by smoking are: lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

  The total number of deaths in Wales from lung cancer was 2,017 in 1993 and 1,852 in 1995. It is likely that smoking would have been a major factor in between 90 and 95 per cent. of these deaths.

  The total number of deaths in Wales from coronary heart disease was 9,676 in 1993 and 8,647 in 1995; and from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was 1,802 in 1993 and 1,961 in 1995. It is likely that smoking would have been a major factor in a significant proportion of these deaths.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that responsibility for inward investment to Wales will not be transferred from Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [33741]
  154
  Mr. Hague
  Yes. I have no plans for a further statement.

  Industrial Assistance (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much expenditure was incurred in the county of Gwynedd during the financial year 1995–96 under the Industry Acts; how many new jobs have been facilitated by such expenditure; and if she will break down the expenditure by type of scheme. [34002]

  Mr. Hague
  Comprehensive information is not readily available. However, under the four main schemes—regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants, small firms merit award for research and technology, and support for projects under research, the information is as follows:

  Scheme

  Value of offers accepted (£)

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  506,000

  Regional Enterprise Grants (REG)

  65,930

  Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART)

  301,581

  Support for Projects Under Research (SPUR)

  —

  Total

  873,481

  Of these, only RSA is directly job-related and 142 jobs were forecast to be created or safeguarded by the relevant projects.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 978–79, if he will analyse the financial assistance which came to the county of Gwynedd during the financial year 1994–95 according to (a) regional selective assistance, (b) regional enterprise grants, (c) small firms merit award for research and technology and (d) support for products under research. [34032]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Scheme

  Value of offers accepted (£)

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  4,173,500

  Regional Enterprise Grants (REG)

  110,948

  Small Firms Merit Awards for Research and Technology (SMART)

  153,577

  Support for Projects Under Research (SPUR)

  —

  Total

  4.438,025

  Higher Education Expenditure
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the public expenditure on higher education in Wales, including public expenditure on student maintenance, both in cash terms and in real terms, and expressed as a percentage of(a) estimated Welsh GDP and (b) estimated United Kingdom GDP for each financial year since 1989–90; and what is planned for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [33811]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is not available for the years before 1993–94. Welsh gross domestic product is calculated only for calendar years. The figure for 1993 and 1994 at current prices and factor cost are estimated at £22,264 million and £23,808 million respectively.

  Information for the years after is set out as follows:
  155

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total HE public funding including student maintenance (cash terms)1 2

  367.263

  408.444

  415.328

  422.934

  424.119

  423.299

  Real terms 1994–95 prices

  374.014

  408.444

  404.212

  400.598

  391.923

  382.557

  As a percentage of UK gross domestic product3

  0.06

  0.06

  0.06

  0.06

  0.05

  0.05

  Total HE public funding excluding student maintenance (cash terms)1

  282.563

  313.744

  311.328

  314.934

  313.119

  311.299

  Real terms 1994–95 prices

  287.762

  313.744

  302.996

  298.302

  289.349

  281.337

  As a percentage of UK gross domestic product3

  0.04

  0.05

  0.04

  0.04

  0.04

  0.04

  1 Includes tuition fee income and adjustments relating to dual support for research.

  2 Includes student maintenance awards for Welsh domiciled student studying in the UK and the gross value of student loans for HE students in Wales.

  3 At market prices.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Dans
  To ask the Secretary of. State for Wales if local authorities in Wales will be eligible during 1996–97 for grants under the Home Energy Conservation Bill action scheme. [33449]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All local authorities in Wales are in principle eligible for grant aid under the Home Energy Conservation Bill action programme but applications linked to reports under the Bill must be submitted by September 1996. Welsh councils are not required to produce the report until November 1997.

  Education and Training Funding (EU)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the applications made by organisations or individuals for funding for education and training purposes from the European Union in each of the last three years which(a) were submitted through the Welsh Office and (b) of which the Welsh Office received notification. [33393]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34144]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Family Health Service Authority

  Prescription items dispensed (thousands)

  Net Ingredient Cost (£ thousands)

  1992–931

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1992–931

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  281.1

  306.2

  318.3

  327.5

  2,854.40

  3,395.10

  3,823.80

  4,247.0

  Dyfed

  259.3

  271.8

  288.7

  297.3

  2,957.2

  3,374.8

  3,783.6

  4,097.5

  Gwent

  328.3

  356.8

  375.3

  387.6

  3,150.5

  3,692.8

  4,096.4

  4,447.6

  Gwynedd

  176.7

  190.8

  198

  205.8

  1,763.7

  2,114.1

  2,372.3

  2,635.9

  Mid Glamorgan

  497.3

  532.8

  562.5

  582.8

  4,832.7

  5,582.1

  6,415.9

  7,108.8

  Powys

  81.3

  87.9

  91.3

  95.0

  863.1

  981.9

  1,067.8

  1.177.6

  South Glamorgan

  297

  320.9

  337.0

  347.5

  3,215.2

  3,659.7

  4,006.5

  4,336.6

  West Glamorgan

  278.1

  305.2

  319.8

  331.3

  3,132.6

  3,671.1

  3,984.5

  4,291.8

  Wales

  2,200.2

  2,372.3

  2,490.9

  2,574.9

  22,770.1

  26,471.6

  29,550.7

  32,342.8

  1 The figure for Wales includes items and net ingredient cost where the Family Health Service authority was unidentified.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999.999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34145]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the net ingredient cost for preparations used in the treatment of asthma, in total and per health authority, for each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement; [34444]

  (2) what was the number of prescriptions for the treatment of asthma, in total and per health authority, for each of the last four years. [34445]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on the number of prescription items and their net ingredient cost dispensed specifically for asthma could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, most prescription items dispensed for the treatment of asthma fall into one of three therapeutic classes—bronchodilators, corticosteroids and cromoglycate and related therapy—and figures for these are given in the following table. It should be noted, however, that some items dispensed in those classes were not for the treatment of asthma.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teaching Methods
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the teaching skills and methods employed in schools. [33215]

  Mr. Paice
  All teachers need to be equipped with a range of effective teaching methods, and to know when to use them. My right hon. Friend will publish details in September of her plans to ensure all training courses cover teaching methods of proven worth and give priority to primary literacy and numeracy.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the 10 worst performing local education authorities on the basis of national examination results. [33216]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall).

  Teacher Training
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are her priorities for improving teacher training. [33217]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government have been seeking to enhance teacher training over many years. Our current priority is to ensure that all primary schools provide effective teaching in literacy and numeracy. Our plans to develop a new curriculum for initial training—beginning with English and mathematics—will ensure that teachers know how and when to use a range of effective teaching methods.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to improve teacher training. [33229]

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her plans to reform teacher training. [33231]

  Mr. Squire
  Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend announced her intention to build on earlier reforms by setting tighter rules for initial teacher training. This will ensure that all teachers are equipped with the most effective teaching skills and know when to use them. The first step will be to set out the essential content of training in English and mathematics.

  Over time, we shall construct a full professional framework for teachers, covering the content of both initial and in-service training, together with teaching qualifications. This will ensure that all teachers have professional goals for which to aim.

  Pupils (Rochdale)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current number of 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education within the Metropolitan borough of Rochdale. [33218]
  158
  Mr. Paice
  The numbers aged 16 to 18 in full-time education in Rochdale were 2,499 in 1994–95.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on measures for reducing youth unemployment. [33219]

  Mr. Paice
  We will continue with the policies that have reduced unemployment among young people and given the UK an unemployment rate for this age group well below the European Union average.

  Schools (Redesignation)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to redesignate those schools not classified as grammar schools. [33220]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  High School Places
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from parents concerning allocation of high school places in relation to the parents charter. [33221]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 24 April,Official Report, column 419.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on publicity on phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme. [33222]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, some £1.2 million has been spent on providing information to parents and providers nationwide, much of this in the phase 2 areas. It is not possible to break down expenditure between the phase one areas or between phase 1 areas and the rest of the country.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received regarding the planned funding of higher education in the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. [33223]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a substantial number of representations in recent months about the planned funding of higher education over the next three years.

  Schools (Selection)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her plans to extend selection in education. [33225]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend's proposals for extending selection in education were published yesterday in the White Paper "Self-Government for Schools".

  Schools (Streaming)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met with representatives of the Office for Standards in Education to discuss streaming and setting in schools. [33226]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State frequently discusses educational issues with Her Majesty's chief inspector. Officials from Ofsted and the Department also hold regular discussion meetings.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to extend training opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds. [33227]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department will continue to offer and support a wide range of opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds, including specialist provision for those requiring basic skills training.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take further measures to ensure that local education authorities take prompt action to remove school places which are surplus to requirement. [33228]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We look to local education authorities to take action to remove surplus places in the first instance. My right hon. Friend has powers under the Education Act 1993 to direct an authority to bring forward rationalisation proposals where numbers of surplus places appear excessive.

  Youth Education Vouchers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the introduction of vouchers for 16 to 19-year-olds in education and training. [33230]

  Mr. Paice
  None. The Government have no plans to introduce vouchers for 16 to 19-year-olds in education and training. We have announced our intention to consult on the introduction from 1997 of a system of learning credits. These will set out for all 16 to 19-year-olds their entitlement to the education and training they choose.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics her Department collects in respect of the provision of nursery education nationally. [33232]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department collects information on pupils under five being taught in maintained nursery schools; nursery classes in maintained primary schools; other classes in maintained primary schools, including reception classes; special schools; and independent schools.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next plans to visit West Yorkshire to discuss employment prospects for young people. [33233]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit West Yorkshire in the near future. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East, Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) plans to visit Leeds on 11 July and will be discussing employment and training options for young people with Leeds training and enterprise council.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to expand the role of the Office for Standards in Education with regard to school inspections. [33234]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ofsted is responsible for the regular inspection of all maintained schools. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that she plans to introduce legislation in the autumn to give Ofsted powers to inspect LEA monitoring and support services for schools.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the schools which will be offering assisted places from September 1996, (b) the number of places which have been taken up and (c) the average spending per place in each Department of Environment region. [34492]

  Mrs. Gillan
  A list of the 355 schools in England which will be offering assisted places from September 1996 has been placed in the Library. Information on take-up and average cost of places for the academic year 1996–97 is not yet available. Preliminary indications are that take-up of places will remain high.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the maintained secondary schools and their respective local education authorities in which the number of pupils who gained five GCSEs was 10 per cent. or less in each year since 1990; if she will list the totals in each case and as a percentage of secondary schools in the maintained sector; how many of these schools have been designated failing schools through Ofsted inspection; and if she will make a statement. [34493]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are no maintained secondary schools, apart from special maintained schools, in which the number of pupils who gained five GCSEs was 10 per cent. or less in each year since 1992.

  Compliance Cost Assessment
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by her Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34154]
  161
  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by her Department (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0–£999, (2) £1,000–£9,999, (3) £10,000–£49,999, (4) £50,000–£99,999, (5) £l00,000–£4499,999, (6) £500,000–£999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34155]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the budget of each TEC in England and Wales last year(a) was spent and (b) could be used to support management training for small firms. [34121]

  Mr. Paice
  Of the main training and enterprise council budgets administered by the Department, those for employer investment in people—EIP—and skills for small businesses—SSB—may be used to support management training for small firms.

  Table 1 shows the percentage of each TEC's expenditure on DFEE programmes in 1995–96 which was used for EIP and SSB. Information is not available on how much was spent within these budgets on management training.

  In addition, TECs have had the opportunity to put forward proposals for funding under the Department for Trade and Industry's skills challenge—a fund for small businesses and business enterprise support budget.

  Funding for TECs in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Table 1: Percentage of TEC spend on employer investment in people (EIP) and skills for small businesses (SSB)

  TEC spend 1995–96

  EIP SSB percentage

  South East

  Hampshire

  4.53

  Heart of England

  4.66

  Isle of Wight

  11.79

  Kent

  2.78

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  5.18

  Surrey

  9.39

  Sussex

  6.45

  Thames Valley enterprise

  4.71

  London

  Aztec

  7.68

  Centec1

  11.72

  Cilntec

  9.40

  London East

  5.75

  North London

  9.59

  Northwest London

  6.15

  Solotec1

  4.79

  South Thames

  3.90

  West London

  6.95

  162

  Table 1: Percentage of TEC spend on employer investment in people (EIP) and skills for small businesses (SSB)

  TEC spend 1995–96

  EIP SSB percentage

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  5.39

  Cambstec

  10.64

  Essex

  3.01

  Greater Peterborough

  6.66

  Hertfordshire

  5.43

  Norfolk and Waveney

  5.47

  Suffolk

  6.05

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  4.04

  Dorset

  7.17

  Gloucestershire

  3.95

  Somerset

  7.58

  Westec

  4.17

  Wiltshire

  2.33

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  5.05

  Central England

  8.97

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  5.04

  Dudley

  4.94

  Hawtec

  5.32

  Sandwell

  4.18

  Shropshire

  4.71

  Staffordshire

  4.9

  Walsall

  5.65

  Wolverhampton

  4.14

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  5.94

  Leicester

  5.81

  Lincolnshire

  3.75

  North Derbyshire

  6.08

  North Nottinghamshire

  4.57

  Northamptonshire

  7.60

  Southern Derbyshire

  6.52

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  2.45

  Bradford and District

  4.09

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  3.05

  Humberside

  4.50

  Leeds

  4.50

  North Yorkshire

  4.96

  Rotherham

  6.09

  Sheffield

  4.75

  Wakefield

  4.14

  Merseyside

  Cewtec

  4.92

  Merseyside

  4.04

  Qualitec

  2.17

  North West

  Bolton and Bury

  5.02

  Cumbria

  3.35

  Eltec (East Lanes)

  5.62

  Lawtec (Lanes West)

  6.41

  Manchester

  6.03

  Metrotec Ltd. (Wigan)

  4.99

  Normidtec

  3.99

  Oldham

  3.83

  Rochdale

  4.26

  South and East Cheshire

  7.28

  Stockport/High Peak

  6.65

  North East

  County Durham

  3.44

  Northumberland

  4.94

  163

  Table 1: Percentage of TEC spend on employer investment in people (EIP) and skills for small businesses (SSB)

  TEC spend 1995–96

  EIP SSB percentage

  Sunderland City

  2.35

  Teesside

  3.17

  Tyneside

  4.95

  1 include payments made to these TECs who took over responsibility for programmes previously run by South Thames TEC.

  Home-school Contracts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the views she expressed on 18 June in her meeting with the Campaign for State Education, on the undesirability of home-school contracts, represents Government policy; and if she will state her policy in respect of home-school contracts. [34497]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has made very clear her belief that home-school contracts can be extremely effective in strengthening partnerships between schools and parents. My noble Friend the Minister of State emphasised this point when he met the Campaign for State Education on 18 June.

DEFENCE

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34143]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Although information for MOD headquarters contracts is held on a central database, those records do not include details of low-value "local purchase" contracts placed by a number of outstations or contracts placed by the defence agencies. That information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the details for the categories in the question for MOD HQ contracts are as follows:

  (a) £214,390

  (b) (i) £1

  (ii) approximately £2,000 million (to provide a more precise figure may infringe commercial confidentiality)

  (c) (1) £9,295

  (2) £15,181

  (3) £7,227

  (4) £1,731

  (5) £2,237

  (6) £522

  (7) £665

  (d) £36,858.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests the United States Government have made in respect of the transfer of nuclear weapons 164
  information obtained from the United Kingdom to France under the US-France nuclear co-operation agreement signed on 4 June. [34100]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No requests have been made by the United States.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, columns 468–69, on charges for British bases, if his Department has now received figures for the renting of sites in (a) Lipa, (b) Sipovo, (c) Bugojno, (d) Sanski Most, (e) Mrkonjic Grad,(f) Banja Luka and (g) Vitez where rental prices were previously unavailable. [34049]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 21 June 1996]: The latest information on the sites in question is as follows:
  Lipa

  No lease has been negotiated for the site at this location. Therefore no costs have been incurred.

  Sipovo

  Three factories, a sawmill and a hotel are occupied. As yet no owners have been identified, so no costs have been incurred.

  Bugojno

  The factory site is due to be vacated at the end of this month. An owner has now been identified and discussion is under way about retrospective rental payments.

  Sanski Most

  Two sites are occupied. The costs of one, £8,000 per month, were given in my answer of 21 May, Official Report, column 108. The cost of the second site has yet to be established.

  Mrkonjic Grad

  Two factories, a sawmill and dam are occupied. The owner of one factory has been identified and rental negotiations are under way. Other site owners remain to be identified.

  Banjo Luka

  A factory site and two officers are occupied. The cost of the factory, £38,000 per month, was given in my answer of 21 May. The lease of the other two sites has been agreed at a cost of £17,650 per month.

  Vitez

  Negotiations for the use of the school building in Vitez are continuing, but this is state-owned and we aim to secure its use at no cost to the Department. There are a significant number of minor sites around the school which are occupied by British forces. Taken together, their rental amounts to some £11,100 per month. (Not all the costs of these sites were available for inclusion in my reply of 21 May). Costs to the BFI site were given in my answer of 26 January.

  Where no lease exists at present, my Department will
  aim to negotiate one when the owners of the site are identified and proof of ownership is established.

SCOTLAND

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33510]
  165
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33511]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Until this year, large parts of the Scottish Office estate were looked after by Property Holdings. Its maintenance costs did not separately identify the costs of meeting health and safety standards. I am sorry that I cannot therefore supply the information requested.

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Expenditure excluding student maintenance1

  Cash

  183

  228

  296

  345

  632

  669

  674

  663

  657

  651

  Real terms (1994–95)2

  229

  264

  323

  361

  644

  669

  656

  628

  607

  588

  GDP (Cash)

  0.04 per cent.

  0.05 per cent.

  0.06 per cent.

  0.06 per cent.

  0.10 per cent.

  0.10 per cent.

  0.09 per cent.

  0.08 per cent.

  0.08 per cent.

  0.07 per cent.

  GDP (Real terms 1994–95)2

  0.04 per cent.

  0.04 per cent.

  0.05 per cent.

  0.06 per cent.

  0.10 per cent.

  0.10 per cent.

  0.09 per cent.

  0.09 per cent.

  0.08 per cent.

  0.08 per cent.

  Expenditure including student maintenance3

  Cash

  263

  324

  428

  505

  831

  897

  921

  946

  937

  919

  Real terms (1994–95)2

  329

  405

  536

  632

  846

  897

  896

  921

  912

  894

  GDP (Cash)

  0.05 per cent.

  0.06 per cent.

  0.07 per cent.

  0.08 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.12 per cent.

  0.11 per cent.

  GDP (Real terms 1994–95)2

  0.5 per cent.

  0.6 per cent.

  0.8 per cent.

  0.10 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.13 per cent.

  0.12 per cent.

  0.12 per cent.

  GDP Cash (£ million)4

  516,994

  556,781

  580,518

  605,156

  639,681

  676,179

  712,000

  754,000

  795,000

  836,000

  GDP Real terms (1994–95 prices)4

  646,968

  645,046

  633,031

  634,096

  651,437

  676,179

  692,944

  714,180

  734,649

  755,536

  1 The figures provided relate to grants to SOEID-funded institutions prior to 1993 and to SHEFC after 1993.

  2 Description of real terms is based on 1994–95 prices.

  3 The figures provided relate to grants to SOEID-funded institutions prior to 1993 and to SHEFC after 1993, and to student awards, loans, access fund and tuition fees paid by the Student Award Agency for Scotland but not including SAAS DRCs.

  4 GDP figures are take from the Treasury 'GDP and GDP Deflators at Market prices' table dated 9 April 1996.

  5 Figures for 1995–96 are provisional.

  Source:

  1989–90 'Serving Scotland's Needs' March 1995, CMD 2814.

  1990–91 to 1998–99 'Serving Scotland's Needs' March 1996, CMD 3214.

  Figures for 1992–93 and later years are not directly comparable because funding for teaching and research at the eight universities in Scotland previously funded by the Universities Funding Council was the responsibility until 31 March 1993 of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Human Ecology Department (Edinburgh University)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received relating to the closure of the department of human ecology at the university of Edinburgh. [33224]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  None.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer, of 7 June,Official
  166

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was public expenditure in higher education in Scotland excluding public expenditure on student maintenance in(a) cash terms, (b) real terms and (c) expressed as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product for the financial years 1989–90 to 1995–96; and what is planned for 1996–97, 1997–98, and 1998–99; [34249]

  (2) what was public expenditure in higher education in Scotland including public expenditure on student maintenance (a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) expressed as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product for the financial years 1989–90 to 1995–96; and what is planned for 1996–97, 1997–98, and 1998–99. [34248]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested on expenditure in higher education in Scotland, both including and excluding expenditure on student maintenance, is as follows:

  Report, column 592, if he will name the four companies and the number of persons employed by each in the Inverclyde enterprise zone. [33812]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The four companies which operate from sites within the Inverclyde enterprise zone and which have been attracted to those sites by Locate in Scotland are:

  Chicony Electronic (UK) Ltd.

  Cigna Services UK Ltd.

  KARE Ltd.

  Minebea Electronics UK Ltd.

  Information on the number of persons currently employed by these companies is not held centrally.
  167

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34135]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not recorded centrally within the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34134]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Princess Victoria (Memorial)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland
  if he will take steps to ensure the rebuilding of the memorial in Stranraer to the 133 persons who lost their lives on 31 January 1953 in the Princess Victoria disaster. [34353]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This is a matter for Dumfries and Galloway council in view of its statutory responsibility under section 96 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for statutes and monuments in public places.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quarantine
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has evaluated in support of the policy of quarantine over vaccination with respect to the importation of pets from European Union member states; and if he will make a statement. [33918]

  Mrs. Browning
  The current policy on quarantine stems from a committee of inquiry—the Waterhouse committee—which was set up in 1970 to review the policy after the outbreaks of 1969 and 1970. This was carefully reviewed in the light of the recommendations in the Agriculture Select Committee report on health controls on the importation of live animals, published on 23 November 1994. Officials are also continually updated on the rabies situation in the European Union through the quarterly reports of the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for rabies surveillance and research and its frequent contacts with a number of other interested bodies, such as the Organisation International de Epizooties and the European Commission.
  168
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the quarantining of pets imported from member states of the European Union. [33917]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Weston Super Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on 25 January 1995,Official Report, columns 216–17.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the officially recorded incidences of rabies in pets imported(a) between member states of the European Union and (b) into the United Kingdom from European Union member states since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [33901]

  Mrs. Browning
  There have been two cases of rabies in pets imported into Great Britain from other European member states since 1966. Both of these were in dogs imported from the German Federal Republic between April and May 1969. The Waterhouse inquiry was set up to review the policy and precautions against rabies following these outbreaks of rabies outside quarantine. It concluded that it was not possible to determine whether these animals were infected when imported or whether they contracted the disease indirectly while in quarantine.

  It is not possible without incurring disproportionate costs to list the officially recorded incidences of rabies in pets moved between European Union member states since 1966. We have received comprehensive information on rabies cases within Europe only since 1977. This is compiled by the WHO collaborating centre for rabies surveillance and research, whose data on outbreaks are broken down by country but do not usually include the country of origin of imported animals.

  Bovine Offals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what exemptions have been made to the prohibition of bovine offals from cattle aged more than six months entering the human food chain since November 1989 with particular reference to the use of bovine material containing spinal cords for the preparation of gelatine. [34091]

  Mrs. Browning
  The regulations in force since November 1989 contain an absolute prohibition on spinal cord being used for any material intended for human consumption including the production of gelatine. No exemptions have been granted to allow this material to be used for human food.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34150]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each
  169
  Session since 1991–92, legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of (a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33581]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: There have been no instances in the period since the 1991–92 Session of this Department introducing legislation with the purpose of removing the effects of a judicial review decision.

  There has been no instance of the introduction of legislation in order to implement a judicial review decision. This stemmed from the judgment of the High Court of 22 June 1995 in proceedings brought by the National Farmers Union which declared unlawful the criteria used to determine eligibility for quota for producers who, at the time of the introduction of livestock quotas, had an investment programme to expand livestock numbers. The criteria in question appeared in the Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas Regulations 1993, S.I. 1626, amended by S.I. 1993/3036 and 1994/2894, regulation 13A(15) and schedule 2, part V. The Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas (Re-assessment of Eligibility) Regulations 1996, S.I. No. 48, implement the judgment by providing for revised criteria and for the re-assessment of the eligibility of these producers.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the

  Expenditure under the farm and conservation grant scheme

  £ million

  RSC

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Carlisle

  930,712.42

  3,416,402.65

  5,153,773.52

  5,808,194.55

  5,225,671.53

  3,584,591.38

  1,117,503.12

  Northallerton

  729,074.65

  2,436,188.82

  3,089,841.60

  3,472,513.95

  3,441,871.56

  2,420,960.29

  707,016.71

  Nottingham

  309,858.18

  1,252,212.67

  2,312,156.01

  2,623,115.86

  2,245,973.29

  2,028,193.54

  362,502.62

  Crewe

  1,381,944.28

  4,724,433.39

  4,485,964.49

  3,539,527.75

  3,490,007.55

  2,355,242.39

  539,425.15

  Worcester

  294,446.63

  1,132,565.32

  1,595,510.41

  1,790,880.27

  1,870,610.96

  1,599,068.10

  567,512.07

  Cambridge

  111,553.45

  1,169,139.03

  1,773,753.49

  1,114,898.57

  2,122,048.08

  1,473,366.89

  248,465.90

  Exeter

  1,171,665.66

  3,450,144.86

  4,688,883.51

  4,707,142.13

  4,415,658.10

  2,915,124.83

  1,059,472.23

  Bristol

  735,502.15

  3,604,221.61

  4,030,773.69

  2,773,918.95

  3,244,641.75

  2,581,489.12

  504,487.32

  Reading

  1,098,557.10

  5,546,704.59

  8,682,085.83

  7,872,902.63

  8,457,562.66

  2,099,720.70

  518,573.88

  Total

  6,763,314.52

  26,732,012.94

  35,812,742.55

  33,703,094.66

  29,288,373.95

  21,057,757.24

  5,624,959.36

  1 Records for this financial year have yet to be compeleted.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the animal welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility. [34293]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The Department is responsible for the welfare of livestock on farm, at market, at slaughter, and for the welfare of all animals during transport.

  Meat Staining Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to monitor 170
  Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33571]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: There have been 11 concluded applications for judicial review commenced since the 1991–92 Session of decisions by the Ministry. The Ministry's decision was upheld by the court in all but three cases. The first involved a challenge to a decision of the dairy produce quota tribunal and resulted in the case being remitted to a differently constituted tribunal; the second involved imports of potatoes and citrus fruit from northern Cyprus. That case is currently subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal and involves cross actions by the Greek Cypriot and Turkish companies. The third case is that involving sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quotas referred to in the answer to the earlier question.

  Agricultural Schemes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each of his Department's regions, the annual expenditure figures and forecasts for(a) countryside access schemes, (b) countryside stewardships, (c) environmentally sensitive areas, (d) farm and conservations grant schemes, (e) farm woodland premium schemes, (f) habitat schemes, (g) nitrate sensitive areas, (h) moorland schemes and (i) organic aid schemes for each year between 1990–91 and 1998–99. [33995]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: The following table provides the information. For the farm and conservation grant scheme, I am able to provide the expenditure by region for the years 1989–90 to 1995–96. The information for the other schemes is not available on a regional basis.

  the enforcement of meat staining regulations; and if he will seek to amend them to require the transportation of condemned meat to be carried out in sealed containers. [33728]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]The control and supervision of the slaughter and processing of cattle aged over 30 months is undertaken by the Meat Hygiene Service in Great Britain and the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland veterinary service in Northern Ireland on behalf of the Intervention Board executive agency, to which they regularly report. This includes responsibility for enforcement of meat staining requirements. It is already a requirement under
  171
  Commission regulation 716/96 that stained material must be transported in sealed containers to specially authorised incineration or rendering plants for processing and destruction to prevent its entry into the human or animal food chains.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what arrangements he is making for the disposal of surplus stocks of animal feed containing mammalian meat and bonemeal, MBM, following the recent ban on feeding MBM to farm livestock. [32479]

  Mrs. Browning
  [pursuant to her reply 10 June 1996, Official Report, column 2.]: The Government have today sent a letter to all livestock farmers, feed merchants and feed compounders in the United Kingdom offering to fund the collection and disposal of any residual stocks of MBM or feed containing MBM. Thereafter, after consultation with the appropriate organisations, an order will be laid to make it illegal to have MBM, or feed containing MBM, on farms or in the premises of feed merchants or at feed mills.

  Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for class III vote 1 (Intervention Board Executive Agency: CAP market support and administration) and for class III vote 2 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: operational expenditure, agencies and departmental administration). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £6 million in these votes will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who initially evaluates the matches produced by the housing benefit data matching exercise; and if he will make a statement. [33780]

  Mr. Heald
  During the current development phase of the project, the initial evaluation of the matches produced by the housing benefit matching service is being undertaken by the local authorities involved.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities have had housing benefit data matched by the housing benefit matching system; and if he will make a statement. [33779]

  Mr. Heald
  The London boroughs of Westminster, Hounslow and Richmond have had housing benefit data matched as part of the development phase of the housing benefit matching service project.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities' data it is planned will be matched by(a) 1 October, (b) 1 January 1997, (c) 1 April 1997 and (d) 1 June 1997. [33781]

  Mr. Heald
  The housing benefit matching service project is being taken forward in two phases. Phase 1 will involve eight London boroughs and will be complete by October 1996. Phase 2 will commence in October 1996 and is national implementation. The detailed schedule 2 is in preparation.
  172
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data matching exercises have been carried out between Benefits Agency staff and those claiming benefit; and if he will place the results in the Library. [33784]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on 18 March,Official Report, columns 15–16.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the savings to his Department for 1995–96 from(a) the introduction of incapacity benefit and (b) the new all work test of incapacity; [32487]

  (2) what are the current estimates of the savings to his Department arising from the introduction of incapacity benefit in each of the years 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [32488]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  The original estimates for savings in 1995–96 and 1996–97 have been revised. The new estimates for these years reflect the decision to control the number of pre-April 1995 cases being put through the all work test to ensure that the total number of cases being processed does not outstrip operational capacity. Long-term savings from the policy changes are unaffected by these changes.

  Incapacity benefit

  Year

  Estimated savings £ million

  1995–96

  340 of which 125 is attributable to the all work test

  1996–97

  1,060

  1997–98

  1,860

  1998–99

  2,200

  1999–00

  Not available

  2000–01

  2,500

  1. Estimates for expenditure on incapacity benefit are contained in the 1996 Departmental Report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  2. All estimates except that for 2000–01 are in cash terms rounded to nearest £10m.

  3. Figures for 2000–01 are at 1995–96 prices rounded to nearest £100m.

  4. The equivalent cash figure in 2000–01 assuming an uprating factor of 2.25 per cent. in each year after 1998–99 is £2,800m.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the proactive elements in the Benefits Agency's approach to the detection of internal fraud; and if he will make a statement. [33785]

  Mr. Heald
  The Benefits Agency security strategy addresses the problem of internal and external fraud. The initiatives of the security strategy, such as new claims visiting and targeted reviews, are effective against both internal and external fraud, and provide a significant deterrent measure. Work has also been undertaken to improve the awareness of staff, and to encourage the reporting of suspicions of fraud.

  The Benefits Agency also takes a proactive approach to the detecting of internal fraud. There are several strands to this approach including:
  173
  Security checking—there are a large number of checks in place within the benefit payment and administration processes, which are aimed at providing assurance that processes are as secure as possible, and deterring staff from attempting fraud and detecting quickly frauds which are attempted.

  The audit trail analysis system (ATAS)—all of the Department's main computer systems have an audit trail—a record of the activity of users of the systems. ATAS provides a powerful tool for the detection and investigation of internal fraud, enabling suspicious patterns of user activity on computer systems to be automatically selected for investigation, and also providing a means of interrogating audit trail data.

  Security specialists have put in place in each district (and some central units) within the agency. Trained in risk analysis, the security specialists are conducting an ongoing analysis to identify areas of potential local vulnerability to internal fraud.

  Reports of completed investigations are analysed, and wherever possible the ATAS system used to ensure that no other frauds using a similar method exist. Where investigations highlight weaknesses in procedures or computer systems, the information is used in an on-going processor risk analysis, to inform the programme of system improvements.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are employed to investigate internal fraud within the Benefits Agency; and if he will state their grades. [33789]

  Mr. Heald
  At present, there are 35 staff employed on a full-time basis as internal fraud investigators, the large majority of whom are in pay band C3—formerly HEO grade.

  There are also approximately 100 further trained investigators within benefit areas and central directorates, who are normally employed on other duties, but who can be called upon to assist with the investigations if required.

  In addition to this, there are a number of staff involved in providing support services for internal investigators at a local and national level.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Benefits Agency organised fraud teams are used to investigate internal fraud; and if he will make a statement. [33786]

  Mr. Heald
  The Benefits Agency uses its organised fraud investigation teams to assist in investigations into internal fraud in cases where the teams' specialist skills can be of benefit to the investigation. The large majority of investigations do not require the involvement of organised fraud, but regular and effective liaison exists between internal investigators and organised fraud to ensure that cases with an organised fraud dimension are identified from internal fraud investigations and vice versa, and that the skills of each section are used when appropriate.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of state for Social Security what are the formal liaison arrangements between individuals investigating internal fraud by staff administering benefits within the Benefits Agency and those investigating internal fraud by staff administering benefits within local authorities. [33790]

  Mr. Heald
  Liaison between internal fraud investigators in the Benefits Agency and those investigating internal fraud by staff administering benefits in local authorities is on a case-by-case basis. Should Benefits Agency internal investigators identify a fraud involving local authority staff, then a framework exists 174
  which enables the sharing of information and co-operation in any investigation. Likewise, should those responsible for investigating local authority staff identify a fraud involving a Benefits Agency employee, a reciprocal arrangement exists.

  In the London area, the London team against fraud, which has a particular interest in local authority internal fraud, is represented at the regular liaison meeting held by the Benefits Agency internal fraud investigators.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many compensation payments for administrative errors made by the Child Support Agency have taken longer than(a) six months, (b) one year and (c) 18 months to process. [34021]

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

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the compliance of the CSA computer system with the Data Protection Act 1984; and what was the cost of the system. [33826]

  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 Mildred Gordon, dated 25 June 1996:

  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.

  The Child Support Agency and its computer system are registered with the Office of the Data Protection Registrar, in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. A close liaison exists with the Agency and the Registrar's Office, with regular meetings both at Chief Executive and working level. The Agency has responded positively to a number of recommendations made by the Data Protection Registrar in the past, following complaints made to the Registrar.

  Any software procurement programmes or system enhancements take full account of the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

  The cost of the CSA computer system is commercial in confidence.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to award compensation payments for administrative errors; [34018]

  (2) how many applications the Child Support Agency has received for compensation following administrative errors by the agency in each year since the agency came into operation; [34019]

  (3) what amount was awarded in compensation for administrative errors by the Child Support Agency in each year since it came into operation; [34020]

  (4) what proposals his Department has to ensure prompt compensation in respect of administrative errors by the Child Support Agency. [34022]

  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.
  175
  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 25 June 1996:

  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about compensation procedures within the Child Support Agency.

  The Child Support agency has a discrete unit to deal with all claims for special payments. This ensures that each case receives individual attention and helps achieve fairness and an appropriate standard of consistency in an essentially discretionary scheme. All cases are treated with priority and are normally dealt with in order of the date of receipt at the unit.

  A special payment is considered where a clear and unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in an actual financial loss to the client. Each case is carefully considered on its individual merits and depending on the complexity of the case, the length of time required to award a special payment can vary considerably. It is not possible therefore to calculate a meaningful average for the time taken to award such payments.

  The numbers of special payment applications received and the amounts paid for the years in question are shown in the table attached.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Year

  Number received

  Amount £

  1993–94

  11

  410.00

  1994–95

  551

  4,469.10

  1995–961

  1,507

  174,100.10

  1996–97

  378

  161,708.43

  1 Figures include 494 cases amounting to £58,400 paid as part of an exercise to rectify incorrectly assessed minimum maintenance payments attributed to absent parents.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents who are(a) single and (b) part of a couple are currently claiming (i) income support, (ii) family credit, (iii) disability working allowance, (iv) housing benefit and (v) council tax benefit. [34270]

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

  Benefit

  Single

  Couples

  Income Support

  1,149,000

  484,000

  Housing Benefit

  908,000

  469,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  953,000

  581,000

  Family Credit

  287,000

  355,000

  Disability Working

  1,024

  2,226

  Allowance

  Sources:

  1. Income support quarterly inquiry August 1995.

  2. Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  3. Family credit statistics quarterly inquiries October 1995.

  4. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries, with and without income support taken at the end of May 1994.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently earning below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions; and how many and what proportion of these are part-time workers. [34276]

  Mr. Heald
  An estimated 2.6 million people, 95 per cent. of whom work part time, have one or more jobs with earnings below the lower earnings limits.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount paid in national insurance contributions by employers; and what proportion this represents of the national insurance fund in each of the last three years. [34245]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is in the table:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Employers' contributions1 (£ billion)

  20.2

  21.1

  21.3

  Employers' contributions as a percentage of National Insurance Fund receipts2

  56.7

  47.5

  47.2

  1 Total of employers' class 1 and class 1A contributions paid into the national insurance fund.

  2 National insurance fund receipts include contributions paid by employers, employees and the self—employed, the Treasury grant (from April 1993) and other income. Further information is available in the national insurance fund accounts for each year, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of removing employer national insurance contributions on earnings below the lower earnings limit. [34234]

  Mr. Heald
  If employers were not required to pay national insurance contributions on the portion of their employees earnings below the lower earnings limit, contribution revenue for 1997–98 would be reduced by about £5 billion.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Benefits Agency (Advice Line)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 223, when a review of the freeline telephone advice service will be completed; and where the results will be published. [34320]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 21 June,Official Report, column 629.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1995,Official Report, column 673, when he expects to place details of successful bidders for the Benefits Agency medical service in the Library. [34271]
  177
  Mr. Burt
  Details of successful bidders for the Benefits Agency medical service will be placed in the Library following the award of a contract or contracts, which is expected to be by April 1997.

  Benefits Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims have been made against the Benefits Agency owing to claimants being wrongly advised by the Benefits Agency in the last year for which figures are available; [33926]

  (2) how many extra-statutory payments have been paid out in compensation to claimants found to have been given wrong advice by the Benefits Agency in the last year for which figures are available; [33927]

  (3) how many claims made against the Benefits Agency for wrongly advising claimants in the last year for which figures are available have been upheld by the social security appeal tribunal. [33929]

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

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on extra-statutory compensation to claimants found to have been given wrong advice by the Benefits Agency. [33928]

  Mr. Evans
  Where it its determined that official advice was clearly wrong and that, as a result, a claimant has lost underlying statutory entitlement to benefit, an extra-statutory payment is considered. It is determined as though the correct advice had been given and in accordance with the benefit legislation appropriate to the period in question. The Department's policy in such cases is that a compensation payment will be considered.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the average value of contracts awarded by his Department, (b) the value of (i) the

  Legislation

  Effect

  Approximate numbers affected at point of change

  Housing Benefits Regulations 1982

  Claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit including rent costs were transferred to housing benefits: rent rebate, rate rebate and/or rent allowance

  Not available

  Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance) Regulations 1984

  Claimants in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension and housewives non-contributory invalidity pension were transferred to severe disablement allowance

  250,000

  s.20 of the Social Security Act 1986

  Claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit were transferred to income support

  24.4 million

  paras. 5 and 6 of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1986

  Claimants in receipt of special hardship allowance were transferred to reduced earnings allowance

  150,000

  Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987

  Claimants in receipt of family income supplement were transferred to family credit

  200,000

  Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987

  Claimants in receipt of pre-1988 housing benefits were transferred to housing benefit

  24 million

  Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1987, Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987

  Claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit who were working for between 24 and 30 hours per week became eligible to claim family credit

  Not available

  s.2 of the Social Security Act 1988, para. 8 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Act 1989, Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996

  Claimants in receipt of reduced earnings allowance over pensionable age were transferred to retirement allowance

  32,000 to date, 2,000 to be reviewed

  Social Security (Introduction of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991

  Claimants in receipt of attendance allowance under the age of 65 were transferred to disability living allowance (care component)

  1340,000

  178
  smallest and (ii) the largest contract awarded, (c) the number of contracts with a value of (1) £0 to £999, (2) £1,000 to £9,999, (3) £10,000 to £49,999, (4) £50,000 to £99,999, (5) £100,000 to £499,999, (6) £500,000 to £999,999 and (7) above £1,000,000 and (d) the total number of contracts awarded in 1995–96. [34137]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claim income support; and what proportion of them are over state retirement age. [34158]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at August 1995, there were 5,751,000 income support claimants, of whom 27.6 per cent. were over state retirement age.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34136]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Benefit Claimants (Transfers)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those provisions of social security legislation which have transferred claimant groups from one benefit to another since 1979; and if he will give approximate numbers of affected claimants. [34486]

  Mr. Burt
  The main legislative provisions which have resulted in the transfer of recipients from one benefit to another are listed in the table, together with such information as is available regarding the numbers affected.
  179

  Legislation

  Effect

  Approximate numbers affected at point of change

  Social Security (Introduction to Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991

  Claimants in receipt of mobility allowance were transferred to disability living allowance (mobility component)

  1700,000

  Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1991, Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1991

  Claimants in receipt of income support who were working for between 16 and 24 hours per week became eligible to claim family credit

  Not available

  Council Tax (General) Regulations 1992

  Council tax benefit introduced to replace community charge benefit

  25.5 million

  Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations 1995

  Claimants in receipt of sickness and invalidity benefits were transferred to incapacity benefit

  1.9 million

  s.40(2) of the Jobseekers Act 1995

  Claimants in receipt of unemployment benefit and/or income support for the unemployed will be transferred to jobseeker's allowance from 7 October 1996

  Numbers will depend on actual numbers claiming

  1 Claimants who received both attendance allowance and mobility allowance are included in both figures; the total number of people affected is not available.

  2 Figures based on numbers claiming before and after change; actual number of transfers may be lower.

  Male Earnings Mobility
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the paper on male earnings mobility to which he referred in his recent speech on welfare reform and Christian values at Southwark cathedral. [34938]

  Mr. Lilley
  The paper on male earnings mobility in the lifetime labour market database will be published today, and copies of the paper will be placed in the Library. The study follows a sample of men aged between 25 and 44 in 1978, over a 15-year period. It provides a valuable addition to our understanding of how people's work status and earnings change over time and confirms that an interpretation of statistics on the distribution of income and earnings that suggest those at the bottom have become worse off, is too simplistic.

  The men in this study have not, in general, stayed in the same position for 15 years. Many have moved both into and out of work and the great majority of earners saw real increases in their earnings over the period.

  Child Support (Benefits)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reduced benefit directions have been imposed in each year since the introduction of the Child Support Agency; and how many reduced benefit directions have been issued in the current year to date. [34463]

  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.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 June 1996:

  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency.
  180
  During 1995–96 27,478 reduced benefit directions were imposed. No information is available prior to this. In the current year 1,091 reduced benefit directions have been imposed during April 1996.

  Figures on the number of reduced benefit directions imposed are included in the CSA Statistical Information placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  I hope this is helpful.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33459]

  Mr. Newton
  Working conditions within the Privy Council office over the past five years have not at any time fallen below acceptable health and safety standards, although the maintenance of such standards is an important management priority and resources are directed to that end as necessary. I am not responsible for any agencies.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33457]

  Mr. Newton
  None. I am not responsible for any agencies.

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

Lord Bingham of Cornhill
The Right Honourable Sir Thomas Henry Bingham, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of England, having been created Baron Bingham of Cornhill, of Boughrood in the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the Lord Woolf.

Company Directors: Remuneration
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they are taking to restrain the remuneration paid to senior directors in private companies.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government do not intend to intervene in what is essentially a matter for companies and their shareholders.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the expressed aims of this Government is to bring about a classless society? Does he agree that two of the essential ingredients of such a society are fairness and justice? How can the Government reconcile the vast salary increases and other payments that have been and are being made with the increases that some people receive which normally barely cover the rate of inflation, to say nothing of the great poverty which exists in some parts of the country? In those circumstances, is it not essential, in spite of what the Minister said, that radical changes should be made?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes what the Prime Minister said on taking up office; he also said that remuneration should be justified by company performance and affordability. If the noble Lord believes that a classless society is indeed desirable, I am sure that he must view with concern the severance packages that members of the AEEU have settled for themselves which allow a number of people to receive up to £500,000. I would guess that they would attract the same strictures from him.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that most private companies are family businesses and the shareholding is
916
very narrow? It would be intolerable if the government of the day intervened to set the remuneration of directors in a family business.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. I am sure he agrees with our proposal to amend the provisions of the Companies Act in relation to the disclosure requirements concerning directors' pay and pensions to bring them into line with the recommendations that Greenbury made and which have already been implemented or are about to be implemented under the Stock Exchange listing rules. Requiring greater disclosure and transparency is one thing; an attempt to limit what people should be paid is quite another.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, should not the Government be congratulated upon their loyalty to the first principle of capitalism? I refer to the prosperity of the few at the cost of the many.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought that that was a policy now adopted on the Benches opposite. We are looking at companies that have been and are continuing to be successful. How the directors are remunerated should be justified by the company's performance and affordability. It would certainly not do anything for the companies' or the country's economy if governments sought to intervene.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a lot has changed in recent years? Nowadays shareholders, commonly called "owners", and particularly institutional shareholders, take a considerable interest in the remuneration of directors, to the point of removing them from office from time to time. Does not the Minister further agree that attempts by both parties to introduce incomes policies have had one thing in common—they have been disastrous failures?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with greater experience of these matters than I can. I agree with him. On a more serious basis, we welcome the action of the Stock Exchange in introducing new listing rules to require compliance with the Greenbury recommendations. It is right that shareholders should know what is being paid to a director and that there should be new rules brought forward for disclosure of incentive schemes in the longer term for directors. I understand that that is to take place from mid-September, and it is to be welcomed.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend clear up a possible misunderstanding? The expression "private companies" as used in the original Question has a definite and restricted meaning in company law. Does his Answer apply to all companies, the shares of which may be privately owned and which are commonly called "public companies", or is it restricted to the narrow and proper meaning of the term "private companies"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as always my noble and learned friend reads the Question. My Answer was directed to the broader proposition and applies to all companies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if anybody really earns such huge sums of money, he cannot possibly have time to spend the money?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I could make a very good shot at it!
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, my noble friend is obviously right in saying that the remuneration of directors and senior managers is entirely a matter for the shareholders. Does he agree that the real problem is the very large sums of money paid to those who are dismissed for not having done their job properly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, those are the matters that I referred to when I made mention of what some members of the AEEU intend to offer themselves as regards severance pay. What is probably more startling is that the Daily Mirror has been whipping up public opinion to a frenzy over the issue of "fat cats". My noble friend may be interested to know that the managing director of Mirror Group Newspapers—and that newspaper is not always an accurate source of information—struggles by on a mere £693,000 per annum.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government should have concern for circumstances where directors are paid at a high level and that, in the absence of minimum pay rates, the Government are paying public money in the form of family credit out of the public purse because companies are paying below poverty level wages? How many times do the Government check the high levels of pay given to those at the top while they use taxpayers' money to subsidise family credit?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is some considerable way wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I was asked whether we would intervene in the remuneration paid to senior directors. It is wholly inappropriate that such a course should be followed.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the greatest public disquiet has been generated by the enormous increases in salaries paid to the directors of privatised but previously public utilities? To do him credit, the increases have been condemned by the Prime Minister. Now that it has become clear that the privatisation of British Energy will cost the taxpayer £7 billion, how much of that sum in taxpayers' money will end up as higher salaries for the directors of the company? Does the Minister consider that to be an appropriate use of taxpayers' money?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's appreciation of the stance that the Prime Minister has taken on this matter. As regards
918
British Energy, it has made it clear publicly already that it intends to abide by the Greenbury rules. That is to be welcomed.
I waited for the noble Lord's intervention with keen anticipation. He may recall that Mr. Ian McCartney, his colleague in another place, thought that it was a case of breathtaking double standards for executives to be able to cash in a six-figure golden handshake and share options. Double standards are being practised as regards redundancy, and that is a national disgrace. Given his reputation for integrity, I hope that the noble Lord will extend that criticism to the AEEU as well.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Government have said on more than one occasion that their policy is to try to persuade companies not to pay such vast increases, but that has manifestly failed. Why cannot the Government do something about that now? I did not raise the question of the trade unions; they are not private companies. But I do not dodge it. I disagree with what the unions propose as much as I disagree with what is happening in the private sector.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is a regrettable absence of agreement on that matter in another place. I have made it absolutely clear where the Government stand on the issue. We propose to amend the Companies Act disclosure requirements to bring them into line with the Greenbury rules. But it is a matter for shareholders to determine, and we are giving them the opportunity to be better informed in order to make the right decision.

Royal Navy: Support Vessels
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there is available an adequate number of British registered merchant ships, manned by British crews, to support the Royal Navy in overseas operations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government believe that there are sufficient British-registered and owned merchant ships and British crews to support the Royal Navy in overseas operations, if required. However, it is the Government's policy to charter on the international market. This approach ensures the greatest choice of ships and the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the time of the Falklands War in 1982 there were about 2,800 ships on the British register and that there are now about 400? Is he further aware that for ships of over 500 tonnes gross registered tonnage the comparable figures are 1,200 in 1982 and 259 now? Does he agree that the chartering of foreign ships is not always satisfactory because the crews are often reluctant, and may even be forbidden, to enter a war

919
zone? Does my noble friend further agree that these are matters of grave concern which warrant the setting up of an inquiry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not believe that that is the case. I agree with my noble friend that there has been a considerable reduction in the size of the British-registered fleet in the timescale that he described. However, the Government's policy of chartering has shown itself to be a flexible and workable approach, as demonstrated by our operations during the Gulf War.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount telling the House that at present the Government are capable of mobilising sufficient tonnage, whether British or otherwise, to fulfil our commitments in the Falklands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, our commitments to the Falklands and our way of going about things have now changed. In the intervening period since the Falklands War there has been a considerable change in the terms of maintaining a base there, including the arrangements for the runway and so forth. The fact is that we run exercises between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport, the Baltic Exchange and the Chamber of Shipping and other interested parties to make sure that we can mobilise shipping, be it British registered or chartered on the international market.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the Minister remember a recent exercise in which a large part of the British Navy crossed the Atlantic to the United States, for which it was necessary to charter some merchantmen in support? Can the noble Viscount tell the House how many British-flagged ships were able to be chartered and the nationalities of the others?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, subject to correction I understand that no British ships were chartered on that exercise and that although one was put up for charter it was not of the correct type. We must choose vessels that are of the right type, that are available and that meet our specifications. The British merchant fleet is efficient. Its vessels are largely fully dedicated. In such an exercise we cannot expect to see too much slack. The fact that the chartering arrangements worked bears testimony to our policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend really believe that the shipping resources available to this country at the moment are even remotely adequate, or does he think that that is stretching credulity a great deal too far?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. I have described our policy of chartering on the international market and of using the core British fleet where appropriate. The successful combination of those two sources of merchant shipping (which have shown themselves to be
920
available and able to be used) was demonstrated by the substantial operation in which we engaged for the Gulf conflict.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there has probably never been a period when the Royal Navy has been more hard pressed and more hard worked than it is now when it has inadequate resources? Is he aware that those of us who follow these matters are much more inclined to agree with the Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, than with the Minister's rather complacent answers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I hope that my answers have not shown complacency. We follow these issues closely and study the situation with our partners at the Chamber of Shipping, also using organisations such as the Baltic Exchange. The Question revolved around the assets available to the Royal Navy, presumably in terms of fighting vessels. However, we are now more concerned with the ability of the merchant fleet to provide back-up. We are satisfied that that can be done. It will involve chartering on the open market.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the problem outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is to a certain extent exacerbated by the changes in modern shipping? Many new ships are cellular container ships which need sophisticated off-loading cranes in ports and are therefore not really suitable for battlefield purposes. Does the Minister agree that manning is very much part of the problem? Is he aware that, although many young people in this country want to pursue careers at sea, because of the reduced size of our merchant fleet there are simply not enough places available to enable them to do that and we are therefore losing a body of talent which would be of use not only in any potential conflict, but also for all our seagoing purposes and in all our marine-related industries ashore?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the issue of the type and specification of such vessels. It is misleading to quote outright numbers or dead-weight tonnage. We need suitable vessels, such as heavily reinforced ro-ro ferries which can take armaments on board.
In terms of the number of British officers available, I can advise the noble Lord that we have been working with the industry to produce carefully targeted measures, such as the Government's assistance with the training and development of the certificated seafarers' scheme of which the noble Lord is well aware. Such schemes have been successful and we shall be pursuing them further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 12th June he referred to the state of British merchant shipping as "lean and efficient"? Would it not be more correct to regard it as anorexic rather than lean? Is the Minister aware that, contrary to what he said on that occasion and to what he has implied today, the

921
Chamber of Shipping is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of British shipping and about the failure to attract a sufficient intake of seafarers? According to the Chamber of Shipping, that will leave us ill-equipped to participate in the future potential for international shipping. At present we are 800 new entrants short of what is required. To echo the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is the Minister prepared to be much less "complacent" on this occasion and in future about the Government's actions to resuscitate the British merchant fleet?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. I stand by what I said. I believe that the British merchant shipping industry is lean and efficient. To suggest otherwise, as did the noble Lord, is grossly to insult an industry which has shown itself to be highly competitive in competing with highly subsidised, inefficient overseas shipping companies. We have an industry which is a world leader in terms of cruising, the ro-ro industry and the high-tech and container industries. We have also seen considerable developments in our ports. We cannot turn back the clock. The world shipping industry has changed. It is up to our industry in the United Kingdom to become as efficient as possible and to compete on those terms. We have some carefully targeted measures which we believe are appropriate.

Treasury Outlook: Leaked Document
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of the recommendations of the internal report referred to in the Financial Times on 5th June they will take steps to change the outlook of the Treasury.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Financial Times article was based on selective quotations from a leaked draft document by a junior official. The Treasury is right to assess its outlook. It is an essential part of the change management programme which it is undertaking.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over the years many have thought the Treasury to be unduly arbitrary and secretive and not particularly good at figures? Is it not of some interest that the leaked document, whatever its source, seems to admit those shortcomings? Is the Minister further aware that this is not a new problem? With his considerable erudition, does he recall that in 1692 Samuel Pepys, who was not only a remarkable diarist but also a good administrator, complained as follows:
"the life of a virtuous administrator is a continual defensive war against Ministers of State and in particular against the Lords Treasurers and all other prejudiced inquisitors and malcontents"?
After 300 years is it not about time that the inquisitors and malcontents changed their spots?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not recall the incident and I congratulate the noble Lord if he does. My brief tells me that I should now say that the reputation of Treasury officials is not borne out by my personal experience (if true). I believe that it is true. I am always impressed by the officials that I meet at the Treasury in my capacity as their spokesman in your Lordships' House. They have a very difficult job, as some of your Lordships on both sides of the House who have served at the Treasury know—and that is to prevent spending departments, pressure groups and everybody else taking more and more of the taxpayers' money. I am afraid that it is not often the most popular job in government.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the most well-known sources of error in Treasury calculations is its failure to take into account the secondary effects of policies? Calculations are often hundreds of millions of pounds out. That has happened when the Treasury has failed to take into account the secondary effects of employment policies on tax and revenue. As any second-year undergraduate can make a reasonable stab at such calculations, why does the Treasury fail to take into account the secondary effects of policies and as a result gives erroneous advice which costs the taxpayer very large sums of money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Lord refer to second-year undergraduates. I sometimes wonder if the reason that the Treasury sometimes makes mistakes, as we all do, is that there are too many Cambridge graduates in the Treasury—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That may not be a universally popular view, but the fact is that the Treasury and other departments of government try to forecast and to foresee the behavioural and other consequences of policy and to judge what those policies may cost and what benefits they may bring. However, as the noble Lord well knows, economics is not an exact science—nor is prediction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone who tries to change the outlook of the Treasury is guilty of crazy optimism?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Treasury has a major responsibility for looking after the taxpayers' money, which is not always easy. It also has to do it against the background of a very changing world. One of the interesting matters to emerge from the report on the leaked document is that it draws attention to the considerable changes in world trade over the next 20 years as a result of the emergence of major players in the Far East. I should have thought that that was certainly something that all of us should take into account.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I draw to the attention of the noble Lord the necessity for him to point out to the Treasury that at present the taxpayer is paying £2·5 billion net to the European Union without any ascertainable return?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wondered how the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would introduce the European Union into this debate. There are other ways of doing it, but he has rather surprised me. I should have thought that our membership of the European Union was not something that could be decided on the simple question of the taxpayers' balance sheet. The other aspect is the importance of the European Union to us as a trading partner and the clout that it gives us around the world when it comes to trading matters, for example the World Trade Organisation and the like.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whatever criticism can be made of the Treasury, over a long period its policy has resulted in this country having an economy which is the envy of the rest of Europe?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Thanks to sensible government policy led by the Treasury, the United Kingdom is almost unique in Europe. It has a fast-growing economy, with unemployment falling and employment rising, which must be the envy of a few of the other major players in the European Union.

Set-aside Land: EU Rules
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether European Union rules prohibit the holding of charitable events on set-aside land where the landowner receives no payment for its use.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, European Union rules currently prohibit any lucrative use of set-aside land incompatible with the growing of an arable crop. The European Commission has ruled that this prohibition applies even when the proceeds go to charity rather than to the farmer. The Government consider this a totally unnecessary interference in rural life which contributes nothing to the control of agricultural production in the EU.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his encouragingly robust and sympathetic reply. In the short-term can the Minister suggest a solution to the problem faced by the Bicester and Finmere Horse Show, which over the past 35 years has raised many thousands of pounds mainly for the paraplegic sports movement? Owing to this absurd ruling, to date it has found no definite site for its show which is due to be held on 11th August.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the noble Baroness writes to me I shall see what the Ministry can do to help.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Minister says that the Government disagree with the decision of the EU. If they disagree, what will they do about it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have continued to press our case with the Commission very strongly. One of the difficulties is that all bureaucracies make daft decisions like this but in this country Parliament, the press and Ministers for the most part put the matter back on the straight and narrow. In the European Union the Council of Ministers is too part-time to have time to deal with it. With good reason, the European Union pays little attention to the British press. All I can say about the European Parliament is that I hope it can be encouraged to take up this aspect of European Union policy. It would be a useful thing to do.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that the countries which benefit under the common agricultural policy possess between them a large majority of the qualified majority votes which are necessary to change it, can my noble friend look forward to the happy day when the common agricultural policy itself may be set aside?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, generally I look ahead only in terms of tens of years rather than the time-scale to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it not ridiculous that a farmer can grow a non-food crop and graze cattle on set-aside land with the intention of making a profit but he cannot allow that land to be used to raise funds for charity? Does the Minister agree that this example of ridiculous regulation is a suitable candidate for a policy of non-co-operation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. It is a truly daft policy. To add to the noble Lord's list, one is allowed to grow opium poppies on the land.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say what happens if charities use set aside? Who will penalise them? Is not Britain a special case because it has more charities than most other European Union members?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware of any plan to introduce a horde of Belgian inspectors, all disguised as Hercule Poirot, to go round the hedges and byways of England to see whether or not the rules are being transgressed. Nonetheless, if the European Union caught out the United Kingdom on this matter it could reduce the amount of money that it receives from the European Union, and that could be extremely expensive for us.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords,—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are running out of time. The longer we dispute who should take part the less time there will be for both noble Lords to contribute. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, can put his question fairly quickly and then my noble friend will be able to contribute.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this is yet another instance of Europe interfering in the nooks and crannies of British life? Does he also agree that all he has to do to deal with the matter is to ensure that no prosecutions are brought before the British courts? It is before the British courts that such prosecutions will have to be brought. Will that not solve the problem?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware that any prosecutions or investigations are proposed. As to the first comment of the noble Lord, I entirely agree with him.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is illogical that the landowner who makes land available out of the goodness of his heart without remuneration suffers if the European Union catches up with what is going on? He loses the set-aside payment. That does not apply exclusively to charitable organisations. Other social organisations, such as motorcycle clubs, or even pony clubs, wishing to use the land, equally fall within the ban. Does my noble friend agree that this kind of illogicality does nothing to enhance the good standing of public administration in general?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. It does nothing to increase the public standing of the European Union, and I would have thought that that was something it cared about.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is it not the case that all of these rules and regulations are effected by Ministers, not bureaucrats? Ministers take these decisions. Why have the British Government agreed to this ludicrous proposal?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is a Commission decision and has nothing to do with the British Government. We have argued strongly against it, but under European Union rules we have no option but to go along with it.

Prisoners' Earnings Bill
3.18 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Treasure Bill
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Treasure Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I shall be brief.
First, I want once again to thank Sir Anthony Grant for his role in taking this Bill so skilfully through the other place. Without him, we should not be discussing the Bill here today. To most of the other supporters of the Bill, I gave thanks in Committee. There are two additions which I should like to make. One is that I give thanks for the continuous support of the British Museum and its officials, and, secondly, I thank the officials of the Department of National Heritage. They have all been of great assistance from early on in the Bill's introduction.
I recall that when I first met the Secretary of State for National Heritage, which was soon after she had assumed office, I said, "We want to get this Treasure Bill through, can we hope that you will support us?". The answer was that she was all for it and she has done her part.
It is now over 100 years since we first tried in this House, and perhaps in the other place, to reform treasure law. We are now close to success. No longer will the fate of treasure depend on whether, say, 1,000 years ago or more it was buried for the purpose of later retrieval, or buried as a votive offering, or just lost. Even more important is that under the Bill the finder must report his find to the authorities or suffer a penalty. Much of history will now be recorded, so that it can be built up piece by piece by the historians and archaeologists, rather like fitting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
But the Bill on its own is not the complete answer to building the jigsaw puzzle. Recently, as many noble Lords will know, a document on portable antiquities was published. The consultation process on that document is now nearly at an end. Indeed, it closes on Friday. I understand that the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities suggests that there should be a pilot scheme of voluntary reporting in several parts of the country for two years. I only hope that that will happen, because that is at least as significant for our history as is the Treasure Bill and the reporting of finds.
In Committee, I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whom I again have to thank for all her help from the very start of this venture, said that Ministers supported the Bill. I hope that we will have confirmation of that this afternoon.
I come now to the metal detectorists. They, in a sense, come into their own at this moment, because—I am now talking about portable antiquities—until now when they have made finds they are shown on their mantelpieces or they have special cases built to show them off and their skills and their luck. We are now asking them to

927
go further: that they should, under a code of practice, and on a voluntary basis, be asked to report where and when they made their finds. With that they can be prouder than heretofore, because they will be contributing to the whole history of this country. In fact they will help complete the jigsaw puzzle.
That will cost a little money, but that is for two years only, and after that my hope is that the people concerned will find it so worth while that they will go forward for longer. There is no question but that while it may cost a little money, its historical value will be incalculable. Many noble Lords who are involved in the whole subject of treasure will watch progress and, if necessary—I was going to say stick pins into Ministers to get it further on.
This Treasure Bill and the portable antiquities scheme together will complete reforms for our heritage which are long, long overdue.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Perth.)
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his kind remarks. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to him for his tireless efforts, without which we would not have a Bill today. I should also like to thank those members of the opposition parties who have supported the Bill all along. It is a rare and good occasion.
I must say a word about the Church of England. Noble Lords will recall that in the Second Reading debate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol signalled that the Church of England had a number of concerns as to how the Bill might affect the Church's own legal systems of control over its portable antiquities, notably the faculty jurisdiction and the Care of Cathedrals Measure. I can inform the House that we have had further discussions with the General Synod and have agreed that, in the event of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we shall bring forward an order under Clause 2(2) of the Bill. Although the precise drafting of the order will be the subject of further discussion, we anticipate that it will exempt, first, objects found in association with human burials on consecrated ground; and, secondly, objects (except for treasure trove) covered by the Church of England's own legal system of controls. It is intended that all the items will be dealt with under the ecclesiastical law in a manner which is analogous to that proposed under the Biil. It is important to note that we have agreed to do that solely on the basis that the Church of England is in a unique position in having its own legal regime applying to movable articles that belong to it, and the purpose of the order is essentially to provide a clarification of the law in so far as it applies to such objects.
The successful passage of this Bill is indeed an historic occasion, representing as it will the first piece of legislation on portable antiquities ever to have been introduced in England and Wales. It is, we believe, a
928
thoroughly pragmatic Bill—as I said before, it is a classic example of the art of the possible. I should like to repeat that the Government see co-operation between all parties—metal detectorists, archaeologists and landowners—as the way forward.
I should just like to finish by noting that the department's discussion document on portable antiquities has received a wide welcome. Byron said of his mother-in-law that she had lost the art of conversation, but not, alas, the power of speech. Your Lordships may be thinking the same of me now.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I compliment the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on his successful efforts in piloting this measure through your Lordships' House. I wonder whether I might draw the attention of the usual channels to a significant English event that will be taking place this evening, and point out that initial perusal of today's Order Paper suggested that business might be complete before the start of that event. But it seems that now business will not be complete. It may be useful for the usual channels to consider adjourning the House during pleasure so that all Members of your Lordships' House and the staff of your Lordships' House would be in a position to watch the England match tonight.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow the passing of this Bill to take place. It is up to every person to be master of his own fate in his evening's activities.
On Question, Bill passed.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Tunisia) Order 1996
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 17th July 1995, Tunisia became the first Mediterranean country to sign a new Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with the European Union as part of the EU's overall aim to develop relations with the region.
The agreement aims to intensify political and economic links between the European Union and Tunisia. That is to be achieved in a number of ways: through regular political contacts, including annual ministerial meetings; through increased reciprocal trade in agricultural products; through the progressive establishment of a free trade area in accordance with WTO rules; and through expanded economic, cultural and social ties.
The gradual opening of the Tunisian market will make Tunisia an even more attractive place for inward investment. It will provide new opportunities for European Union business. British companies can and, I hope, will play a full part in that process. But it will also make a substantial and practical contribution to the greater economic prosperity of Tunisia. That will lead in time to greater political stability and security, not only in Tunisia but in the rest of the Mediterranean region as a whole. That is in everyone's interest.
The Tunisian agreement is the first step towards a full Euro-Med partnership. I ask the House to support that important objective by giving its approval to the principles behind the agreement. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [23rd report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey).
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we welcome this agreement. As the Minister said, it will help to foster trade between the European Union and Tunisia and will promote co-operation between Europe and the Mediterranean countries of North Africa more generally.
Good relationships need to be forged between those countries which line the Mediterranean on both sides. That is obviously of particular importance to our southern European partners in the EU. Clearly in the case of Tunisia there are considerable disparities between its level of economic development and that of the European Union average. However, that is not a reason for rejecting an association of this kind as set out in the agreement and I note that the European Union will support economic reform, structural adjustment and social development in Tunisia through the agreement.
While I wholeheartedly welcome the agreement, perhaps I may put three or four questions to the Minister. The transitional period allowed before a free trade area is finally established is to be a maximum of 12 years. I wonder whether the Minister will say what is the Government's present estimate as to how long that transitional period will actually take.
Secondly, will the Minister tell the House the current level of trade between the UK and Tunisia and how that compares with German/Tunisian trade and French/Tunisian trade? Will she also tell the House what plans there are for similar agreements with other Maghreb countries?
The Maghreb is an important area and one where closer ties and greater integration are needed between its countries. Finally, will the Minister say what steps are being taken by the European Union to encourage that integration and to avoid a situation in which each of the countries making up the Maghreb region simply indulge in a competition to get closer the EU rather than closer to each other?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from these Benches, we welcome this agreement.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, the EU-Tunisia agreement is the first important building block in the Euro-Med partnership. I could not say for certain which other countries will immediately follow but a number are making preparations. However, there is no doubt that Tunisia is the most advanced. I believe that this progress is in the interests of the UK as well as the EU. Therefore, we should give our firm support to it.
The noble Baroness asked me about the possible length of the transitional period. The answer is not entirely in our hands. Twelve years is the maximum time but given that the long-term goal of the Euro-Med free trade area is that that should be in place by the year 2010, I imagine that the first and standard bearer for the other Mediterranean countries will take about that time. But it will depend to some degree on the access to agricultural products, which is something with which some of the southern European countries have the greatest difficulty.
The noble Baroness asked me about trade between Britain and Tunisia. I do not have the figures here and I certainly cannot give her the figures in relation to Germany and France. For many years France has had a very close trading relationship with Tunisia. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness with all the comparative figures and leave a copy of that letter in your Lordships' Library.
It is true that we are very keen to see greater integration by the Maghreb countries. They already meet on—I think it is—a twice annual basis. Certainly Morocco is extremely interested in this procedure. Morocco and Tunisia have a very special interest because everyone wishes to see moderation in North African politics. One way of bringing that about is by enhancing the level of trade. There is no distance between us there. We believe that there should be greater integration. Tunisia is already enjoying almost unrestricted access to the European Union under the 1976 co-operation agreement for industrial goods. But this new agreement will start the process of a free trade agreement according to WTO rules and that is why it may take up to 12 years because there are quite a number of differences to be bridged.
Tunisia will gradually remove tariff and non-tariff barriers on non-EU goods. The other Maghreb countries will be watching very carefully to see how that is done and how successful it is. I have no doubt that their work will be based on the work of Tunisia.
Certainly the operation of the free trade area will be much enhanced by the competition provisions and the harmonisation of laws in other areas. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for his welcome of the order. There is much to be done. This is a starting process. We shall supply further information to your Lordships as we proceed down this very important path.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensing conditions for certain events]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("or renewing").
The noble Earl said: In November 1973, or thereabouts, I was a parliamentary commissioner on an opposed order, promoted by the City of Glasgow, which we approved. That order became the Glasgow Corporation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order Confirmation Act 1974. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office and the Private Bill Office for giving me a photocopy of that Act of so many years ago.
The order covered persons of any age and applied to any place of public entertainment—that is to say, dancing, music or suchlike—but excluded licensed premises, dwelling houses, premises used mainly for religious worship and clubs for instruction or training. It also covered both the licensing "and the renewal" of a licence of any premises covered by subsection (3) of the new Section 18A to the 1976 Act, which appears at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill. Hence the first of the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour both for the explanation of the amendment that he has moved and, indeed, for the historical perspective that he brings to this part of the proceedings. It is clear that my noble friend is, as ever, driven by a spirit of constructiveness and helpfulness.
On the face of it, what is proposed is eminently sensible. Licensing boards should, of course, consider whether they need to exercise their duty in respect of imposing appropriate conditions not only when they are considering an application for an entirely new licence or permission but also where these come up for renewal. Indeed, that was always the intention. In fact, we have gone further by also providing that boards can vary existing licences to enable conditions to be attached as appropriate. The insertion of a reference to renewing the licence or permission is, however, unnecessary.
The definition of grant to be found in Section 139 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 provides that a grant in relation to a licence includes a grant by way of renewal and that references to "granting" and "application" are to be construed accordingly. The provision of the 1976 Act will of course extend, as appropriate, to the new measures once they are enacted. Consequently, the matter is already covered. However,
932
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to explain the position in greater detail. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am very happy with the reply just given by my noble friend the Minister. Clearly, I do not wish to put anything into the Bill which is unnecessary. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("prescribed").
The noble Earl said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 8 to 10 and 12 to 16. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 should be taken together. I shall explain the reason for that after speaking to Amendment No. 6, which is the principal amendment. It introduces an additional and new subsection (3A) to the Bill which, as noble Lords will see from the Marshalled List, would ensure that, on granting or renewing a licence, the board would "impose conditions as to": first, the maintenance of law and order; secondly, controlling the number of persons present at any one time; thirdly, the means of escape in case of fire and proper fire precautions, including the lighting, sanitation and ventilation; fourthly, the safe condition and heating of the premises; and, finally, the hours of opening and closing the premises to avoid nuisance in the neighbourhood.
Subsection (3B) of the amendment would enable the licensing board to specify the conditions required from the applicant. Subsection (3C) would enable the board to revoke a licence where any conditions have not been complied with. Subsection (3D) would enable the board to know something about the background of the applicant and the exact address of the premises. Lastly, subsection (3E) would enable the board to hold on to any plans of a premises which it may wish a fire officer or a police officer to know about. Those words have been lifted directly from that Glasgow order of all those years ago. I felt that they were so sensible, particularly for my suggested new subsection (3A).
I wish to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to Clause 1(4) which is to be found at the top of page 2 of the Bill. It deals with the conditions that the Secretary of State may prescribe. In Amendment No, 8, I am suggesting that he should be permitted to prescribe additional conditions.
Moreover, as regards the provisions in subsection (6), which permit:
"The holder of a licence [to] appeal to the sheriff against—
(a) the terms of any condition"
except, quite rightly, under subsection (4), I am suggesting that the very important safety provisions in my proposed subsection (3A) should also be excluded by my Amendment No. 9. I hope that my brief explanation covers the consequential amendments,

933
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9 and 10, together with Amendments Nos. 12 to 16. I should like to record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its assistance in the drafting of these consequential amendments.
On Second Reading, other speakers and I expressed our concern about "rave" parties, which persons as young as 15 can attend. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that the safety provisions we were seeking were covered in the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I must admit that they are partially covered in Section 41 and Schedule 1, but not as comprehensively as I am seeking to achieve with my amendments to this Bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for providing me with a useful opportunity to explain precisely the purpose and the benefits of Clause 1. However, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend for the careful and detailed explanation that he has given to the Committee of the aims and purpose of his amendments.
Amendment No. 6, to which my noble friend spoke when moving Amendment No. 2, is the substantive amendment in the group. As he stated, the other amendments relate to consequential drafting changes. My noble friend's amendments proceed from the basis that the licensing board would be granting or renewing a licence under the new provisions. That is not the case.
There is no provision in Clause 1 which gives licensing boards the power to grant licences, nor should there be. There are already adequate provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 for that purpose. The administrative requirements which boards should apply in these circumstances are also already set out in the 1976 Act. All this must have been gone through and the appropriate decision taken before the board turns its attention to the duty imposed on it by Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore, there is no need to oblige the board to repeat these stages which would be part of the effect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 6 also sets out certain conditions which a licensing board should apply, presumably once it had satisfied itself that the licensed premises would be holding a relevant event. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained at Second Reading, all the types of health and safety issues set out in the conditions which my noble friend seeks to prescribe by his amendments are dealt with by the legislative requirements applying already to licensed premises. But, because a licensing board may want to go further in respect of an event covered by this Bill's provisions, it will now have the power to do so.
The purpose of Clause 1 is not to regulate the arrangements covering the granting of liquor licences or the activities of pubs generally which we know are already satisfactorily covered by the 1976 Act. The purpose of Clause 1 is to put beyond doubt that licensing boards have adequate powers to regulate specific events held on these premises. These are legal requirements on a licence holder which he must observe regardless of
934
whether he is holding an event on his premises which would attract the provisions in the Bill, and that is as it should be.
However, under the new provisions in Clause 1 there will be additional safeguards imposed by licensing boards when they think it necessary. Again, this is as it should be. Boards now have the full range of appropriate powers at their disposal. My noble friend also mentioned the scope of Section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Section 41 of that Act deals with public entertainment licences. These licences may be granted where the sale of alcohol is not involved. This Bill deals with licensed premises only.
Section 41 of the 1982 Act already enables the licensing authority to deal adequately with events on non-licensed premises. In our eyes it is therefore not relevant as respects Clause 1 of the current Bill. I hope that the explanation I have given satisfies my noble friend that his concerns about the Bill are all either covered by existing legislation, or that boards will be able to tackle them under the new arrangements in Clause 1. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No.2 and the associated amendments in this group.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am satisfied that these safeguards are provided. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, after ("it") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that I was not present at the Second Reading debate. The issue we are discussing arose out of the deaths of young people at Ecstasy raves and other such events. We have debated that matter at length in this Chamber on other occasions. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to express my views at this stage. This is an emotive issue. The amendment seeks to put an obligation on a licensing board to state its reasons for adopting a particular view. As at present drafted, Clause 1(3)(c) states, "at which it appears to the board that offences may be committed in relation to controlled drugs within the meaning of section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971". Any member of a licensing board may have public knowledge of a particular situation. A policeman may have had a word in the ear of a member of a licensing board. That is not unknown and we must be realistic about these things. My amendment seeks to insert the word "reasonably" in order to ensure that the reasons a board has for taking a particular step can be examined, perhaps by judicial review. As the clause presently stands, there is an absolute power with no provision for review. I appreciate that in the original Act the board has to state its reasons for doing what it does, but the measure we are discussing does not seem to follow the philosophy of that Act. By seeking to insert the word "reasonably" in the Bill, I seek to rectify that position.
I think all of us in the Chamber appreciate that this is a non party issue. We are trying to save young people from themselves and to control what happens in various places. We wish to ensure that the licensing boards behave themselves and do not display a knee-jerk reaction when someone applies for a licence. We are trying to ensure that licensing boards will be required to state—subject to judicial review—why they have decided that a licence should or should not be granted. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. Before I do so, I should again declare my interest as the owner of a licensed premises in Scotland. During the Second Reading debate I spoke of the concern within the trade as regards the absolute power within the Bill as currently drafted. I am grateful for the letter which the Minister sent to me. I had asked for the words "reasonable suspicion" to be incorporated in the Bill. The Minister wrote to me and informed me that that had been objected to by CoSLA who felt that it was going too far, and that it would make it difficult for it to come to a decision. However, I believe this amendment, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, represents a compromise position. It asks for reasonableness on the part of licensing boards without imposing too many of the conditions for which I had asked originally. I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I, too, wish to support the amendment but from a slightly different point of view from that of my noble friend. I believe that anything which focuses attention on health and safety measures as regards young people's events is helpful. I hope that the Minister will regard that as a positive feature of the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raises an interesting topic. I am grateful for the additional comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The question of how to define a relevant event and, in that connection, what test boards should apply when considering whether the characteristic in the present definition about contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 applies, has been debated at length in another place. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, reminded us, the subject was also touched upon during the Bill's Second Reading in this Chamber.
Those earlier concerns, particularly about the test which boards should apply, were taken seriously. Indeed, that issue, as the noble Viscount reminded us, was subject to consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities during the passage of the Bill in another place. We were anxious to have its views on the issue. CoSLA was firmly opposed to any change which could prevent licensing boards from discharging their functions properly. We have concluded therefore that what is in the Bill at present will not hamper the boards in fulfilling their statutory duties.
936
This present amendment is in fact unnecessary. It seeks to insert a requirement that boards must act reasonably when reaching a decision as to whether or not there is likely to be a contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Of course boards must act reasonably here and on every occasion where they are called upon to take a decision. If they do not, they lay themselves wide open to a challenge in the courts. Consequently, there is no need to make express provision as the charge to act reasonably is naturally implicit.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that in subsection (6), at line 25 of page 2 of the Bill, there is reference to a route of appeal. I have also reminded the noble Lord that the requirements in the 1976 Act to act reasonably apply equally to the provisions of this Bill. The grounds of appeal are clearly laid out in Section 39 of the 1976 Act. There are four specific criteria on which an appeal can be lodged by an applicant who is unhappy with the decision made by a board.
In the 1976 Act, and in this Bill, there are well recognised routes of remedy. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for his clear and informative reply. However, I still believe that the word "reasonably" should be inserted in the subsection. I shall not divide the Committee. However, I hope that the Government take further advice on the matter. I am not sure that Section 39 of the 1976 Act meets the observations made by the Minister.
I declare that I have no connection with the licensing trade apart from the fact that I have a pint from time to time in the Bishop's Bar. I have no vested interest in the issue. We seek to achieve a measure of fairness in the administration of this difficult area of life in the community.
I am sure that all noble Lords who have an interest in ensuring that young people in particular are protected from themselves—I believe that that is what the Bill is about—will note with interest what the Minister says. No doubt if representations are made from appropriate bodies those may be brought before your Lordships' House on Report. I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("or that alcohol may be consumed to excess or consumed by people who are under age.").
The noble Earl said: I propose the amendment in the belief that licensing committees will want positively to introduce health and safety measures to young people's events. The amendment seeks to extend the duty placed on the licensing committee when it considers an application for a rave or, more strictly speaking, an event with music and dancing. The amendment is designed to bring the illegal use of alcohol within the scope of the legislation.
The reason for my proposed extension of powers is based on the even greater chance, statistically and numerically, of a young person having a serious accident or dying from the misuse of alcohol. Such accidents and deaths are caused by alcohol overdose or alcohol poisoning—that is, drinking a pint of whisky too quickly with the encouragement of friends—alcohol-induced aggression, fighting, and the chance of a road accident while the inner ear or balance mechanism is temporarily inoperative. The youngster or adult is paralytic, staggering about on the way home, or, even worse, trying to drive home.
Further, alcohol, which is normally a legal recreational drug, can easily become an illegal drug. It is obviously illegal for young people under the age of 18 to possess alcohol in a public place. It is illegal to possess alcohol which has been stolen—for example, shoplifted on the way to the party. It is illegal to possess illicitly distilled alcohol; and it is illegal for an unaccompanied person to be drunk and incapable of looking after himself in a public place.
I accept that the thrust of the Bill is to make the licensing board focus on the extra health and safety conditions that it should attach to a licence for a dance when it anticipates the misuse of controlled drugs. I have absolutely no problem with the imposition of health and safety measures when cannabis or MDMA (Ecstasy) is likely to be used. But I want to ensure that similar health and safety measures are required when the misuse of alcohol is anticipated.
During Second Reading I spoke of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and Ecstasy as all being recreational drugs, and I stand by that. I have not sought to include tobacco in the amendment as I feel that the Bill focuses on sudden deaths and immediate accidents from overdosing. Therefore slow death from nicotine poisoning and cirrhosis of the liver do not fall within the scope of the Bill and are omitted from the amendment.
Perhaps I may say a few words about MDMA (Ecstasy). Unlike alcohol and cannabis, which are depressants, MDMA is a stimulant with the characteristics of an amphetamine. The Ecstasy user seeks the drug to extend his or her day time to allow vivacious all-night dancing and to give him or her good feelings about others around them—the love drug effect. I accept that that ignores the damage now believed to be done by Ecstasy to the serotonin producing brain cells. Noble Lords do not need a lecture from me about the pleasurable effects of alcohol with its disinhibitor effect and subsequent inoperation of the inner ear balance mechanism and loss of sense of place. But I hope that the different characteristics of MDMA and the more popular depressant group of drugs—alcohol or cannabis—will be recognised. Noble Lords will be happy that I consider the hallucinogenic use of drugs such as LSD to have an even more unhelpful effect than the recreational drugs that I believe we are discussing.
I believe that the Bill will be of even greater use to Scotland and its fun-loving people if the anticipated misuse of alcohol can be included in the health and safety measures proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, his discussion seems to be slightly outwith the terms of the amendment before the Committee. The amendment is specifically related to alcohol but in terms of the Act it is related to controlled drugs. I do not make an issue of that. We are at one in that everyone in the Chamber seeks control as regards this issue.
As it stands, I believe that the amendment would be unenforceable in the courts. We do not have a Richter scale of excess to apply to someone coming through the door to a dance saying, "The chances of your getting an alcohol level of between one to 10 is"—whatever the odds might be. I took the opportunity to ask the noble Earl what the word "excess" means in the amendment. I shall not go into the question of drugs, rave places and drying-out places, because they represent another issue. Dealing purely with the amendment before us, I find that the words "to excess" make it extremely difficult to put this into legislation. Once the Government changes and we are on the other side of your Lordships' Chamber, I would certainly not wish to be asked to implement this particular piece of legislation. I support it in principle but feel that the wording would give rise to difficulty.
Viscount Thurso: Having sat next to my noble friend Lord Russell until the early hours of this morning and having greatly enjoyed his tutelage of how to perform when the House is in Committee, I believe this amendment is what he might describe as a probing amendment. My noble friend does raise a very important question; that of under-age drinking and the effect it has on young people. As a former licensee in England and the owner of licensed premises in Scotland, I believe that the vast majority of those in the trade are as concerned as all citizens are with this evil. In that respect, I thank my noble friend for having brought up this point to which we should have regard. However, I have to say to him that when I consulted with my publican friends in Scotland and particularly when I spoke to the British Hospitality Association's representative, who is also the convenor of the Licensing Committee of the Scottish Law Society, they were extremely dubious about this amendment and the effect it would have. I think it goes far wider than my noble friend might possibly have thought. While I clearly support his sentiments, I do not think I can support the amendment as it is.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to raise just one question in respect of this amendment. I am under the impression in connection with the licensing laws that a person must be over 18 to purchase a drink, but I thought that a person as young as 16 could consume a glass of wine or beer on licensed premises. If I am correct then this amendment would prevent anybody from obtaining an alcoholic drink under the age of 18, whether they bought it or they were given it.
The Earl of Lindsay: On behalf of the whole Committee perhaps I may thank to the noble Earl,

939
Lord Mar and Kellie, for the way in which he has set out, I assume from his observed experience rather than from his actual experience, some of the recreational drugs taken by younger people today. I also realise from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that the purpose behind this amendment is one that we would all agree with. However, the practicality is questionable, as the noble Lord himself stated.
Clearly we want to ensure that the excessive consumption of alcohol is, as far as possible, prevented and that under-age drinking is not encouraged. Indeed, both objectives are already covered in law and that law will continue to underpin the new arrangements which we are seeking to introduce in this Bill. The express purpose of Clause 1 is to protect the health and safety of young people attending certain events on licensed premises against drug misuse. In that respect it is, as your Lordships all know, a direct response to concerns expressed by Sheriff Neil Gow, following a fatal accident inquiry into a tragedy caused by drug misuse at an event at licensed premises, that there was potentially inadequate legislative provision to enable licensing boards to take appropriate action to regulate such events.
The provisions in Clause I put beyond doubt that licensing boards now have all the power they need. If necessary, the boards will be able to impose stringent conditions to help protect the health and safety of those attending the events which will be covered by the provisions of Clause 1. However, there may be other events held on the same licensed premises where clearly it is not necessary to impose conditions such as the provision of alternative rest areas, first aid or paramedic cover or stringent controls on numbers. The noble Earl's amendment would have the effect of bringing those events within the parameters of Clause 1.
I am not suggesting, of course, that other events should not be regulated appropriately. What I am suggesting is that other events should not be regulated excessively. We should not prevent responsible people from enjoying themselves at other events, be it in the Bishop's Bar or wherever, on licensed premises; nor should we restrict unnecessarily the licensee in the operation of his business. Licence-holders are already subject to strict controls by licensing boards in the general operation of their business, and if these are breached the licensee faces not only criminal sanctions but the threat of losing his licence and therefore his livelihood.
We have already heard concerns expressed both in this Chamber and in another place that the present definition of "events" in the Bill is too widely drawn and could mean that boards, taking a liberal interpretation of it, would impose conditions on innocuous events. We are not persuaded that this will happen. Licensing boards have enormous experience of dealing with liquor licensing and we feel that, with the assistance of Scottish Office guidance, they will bring that experience to the successful implementation of these provisions. I am afraid, though, that the noble Earl's amendment would put licensing boards into a position which gave them no room for manoeuvre or the exercise of their discretion and force the conditions to be applied where it might be quite clearly unnecessary.
940
I stress again that the motives behind this amendment are motives which we could all share, and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made a telling comment when he pointed out that this amendment, if it became part of the Bill, would be unenforceable when the Bill was enacted. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for giving us the benefit of his own experience and of the contacts he has within CoSLA and the licensing organisation.
My noble friend Lord Balfour was inquiring whether a person over 18 could buy a drink for someone who was under 18 but over 16 and that the younger person could then drink it legally. The answer is yes. A person over 16 but under 18 can drink alcohol on licensed premises but this is only legal when the drink is taken with a meal. No one under 18 can purchase alcohol legally.
I hope that on the basis of the explanations I have given, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I would also draw the noble Earl's attention to issues which we have raised in the recent White Paper on crime and punishment as they hinge upon the areas that he is concerned about.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to thank various noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. It was of course designed to produce a debate and it has done so. Might I reassure the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench that, apart from my experience in the Bishop's Bar, which has helped perhaps, the majority of my experience was learnt while working on an intensive probation project—on the staff, I hasten to add, because it is not first-hand experience.
To be slightly more serious, I am concerned about the resistance of the noble Earl to under-age drinking. He said that the licensing committee can take a hard line on this but I actually do not think that is what is needed. I think it is important that we actually get to work with under-age drinkers and persuade them not to do it, rather than just close the pubs which they are currently using. These days drug workers go to raves and work with people who take controlled drugs. They give information about drugs and what they are doing. Occasionally they give advice, there being a substantial difference between the two. Presumably they also ensure that water is available and they notice if anyone begins to go under. People can be picked up there and then and the health problems which might arise are prevented. Perhaps I see the problem too much as a health and safety issue and not enough as a licensing issue. I appreciate that there is a problem with the rule of law and that we are bringing forward a Bill which takes into account illegal activity. Perhaps the noble Earl wishes to reply.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Bill seeks specifically to deal with the problem of misuse of drugs by young people. We have a basket of other measures and initiatives specifically aimed at under-age drinking. I should not like the noble Earl to think that, because we are not convinced of the benefits of his amendment to this Bill dealing with the misuse of drugs, we are therefore in any way slack in our

941
commitment to prevent under-age drinking. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State regards the misuse of drugs and alcohol by young people as an absolute priority.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that. I did not know it and I look forward to the legislation which will be proposed. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 8. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It is a famous Scottish amendment going back to the days of Willie Ross, George Willis and all those great characters. Every Scottish Bill contained an amendment saying "omit 'may' and insert `shall'". However, there was usually a reason for it.
Amendment No. 7 is to ensure that the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe certain conditions applicable to raves. The Bill currently allows the Executive discretion on the issue of conditions. The amendment removes or curtails that discretion and requires mandatory action by the Secretary of State.
Raves are fairly new. They are not necessarily harmful but can easily go over the edge. Therefore, we believe that firm minimum conditions should be prescribed by the Secretary of State which can act as a basic standard countrywide. Then in response to local conditions and the local climate, there can be alterations. I was amused, when we were listening to the earlier debate, to hear that a person aged 16 can drink with a meal. The noble Earl may remember the famous Scottish bona fide traveller. If you travelled a certain distance in a bus, coach or train, you could go into a public house, order a meal and then get a drink, although it would not be allowed in your local area; you had to be a traveller. The definition of a traveller was someone who dropped in for food. There was some truth in the myth—it was not just a joke—that the traveller got the same pie every week. It lay on the table until he had finished eating and then it was taken away and brought back the next Sunday.
I seek certain parameters. That kind of thing can happen and much more dangerous things can occur with events like raves. Therefore, the Secretary of State should lay down much more precise rules and then local people, with his permission, can add to them or adapt them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for moving his amendment. I endorse the story of the bona fide traveller: it seems mad to throw out a good pie unfinished if it can be used again the following Sabbath.
The question of whether the Secretary of State should exercise immediately his power to prescribe minimum conditions was debated at length in another place. The
942
conclusion of that consideration was that his power should remain discretionary. Let me take this opportunity to explain the rationale behind that decision.
The Secretary of State's power to make an order prescribing certain conditions was introduced in response to concerns that boards might not act reasonably and responsibly in the way they discharge their obligations under the new measures and that there may be inconsistencies throughout Scotland.
We are, of course, committed to issuing guidance to licensing boards on the nature and terms of conditions that may be attached to licences. But we cannot guarantee that the guidance will be followed consistently by each board. The health and safety of the young and vulnerable are important enough to require certain minimum standards to be applied across the country as a whole. Giving the Secretary of State a power which he can exercise, if required, to prescribe minimum conditions which boards must attach to relevant licences, will ensure that the basic policy underlying Clause 1 will not be undermined through inconsistency of approach.
However, this is very much a precautionary measure. There is every reason to believe that licensing boards will act responsibly and implement the policy fully. There is every reason to believe that that will be the case.
To impose mandatory conditions immediately would fetter the important element of local discretion and knowledge which boards can exercise when taking local decisions.
The Scottish Office will monitor practices closely. If it appears that licensing boards, supported by detailed guidance, are unwilling to impose appropriate conditions, then the means are available to enable the Secretary of State to move swiftly to put matters right. The detailed guidance of which I speak will also include model conditions which will give boards an idea of the type of issues to be addressed. However, I should say that a good number of licensing boards already impose those kinds of conditions on public entertainment licences and are therefore familiar with the concept.
Those model conditions will illustrate minimum requirements such as the maximum number of people who can attend the event, the provision of rest areas away from the main activity and that there should be adequate security and support staff of both sexes. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was concerned about that point.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that unless it proves necessary to take formal action, reliance on co-operation and the full exercise of local discretion provide a better way of achieving our objectives. I imagine that the noble Lord will read the response I have given in Hansard and ponder on it and I hope he will understand that there is little between us. We feel that ideally the exercise of discretion in response to local conditions should be the prime response of local licensing boards before the Secretary of State seeks to impose mandatory minimum conditions on them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will be aware that I always read Hansard to check on what

943
was said. I thank him for the assurance he has given; it is a big improvement. His explanation clears up a number of problems. I only hope that local licensing boards will take careful note of what he said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3. line 28, after ("licence") insert ("or his representative").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which I have discussed with the Minister. Under the Bill at the present, if the holder of the licence does not appear, the proceedings fall. The reason for the amendment is so that the holder's representative can appear. Perhaps the Government can find a suitable term such as "authorised agent" instead of "or his representative", whatever the wording might be. We wish to widen the scope of representation before the board. Under the Bill as presently drafted, only the holder of the licence can appear, but, taking a strict reading of the Bill, he cannot do so if he happens to be in America. The amendment is to introduce a degree of flexibility in representation. On that basis, I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful for the explanation of this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The amendment proposed would, effectively, enable a representative to attend in place of a licence holder at a licensing board meeting where consideration is being given to whether a current licence should be varied so that conditions may be imposed on it in cases where the premises will hold events attracting the provisions in Clause 1.
This issue was extensively debated when the Bill was considered in another place. Indeed, the matter was taken away for further scrutiny. However, after careful consideration it was concluded that the change was both unnecessary and potentially damaging.
I believe that my honourable friend the Minister of State in the Scottish Office wrote to the honourable Member for Dumbarton explaining the Government's decision. I could easily make a copy of that letter available to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay.
I welcome the opportunity to offer the same explanation to the Committee as to the reasoning that led to that conclusion. When this point was debated in another place it was suggested that this issue was precedented in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
I acknowledge that there is express provision at Section 15 of the 1976 Act for an applicant or his representative to attend a statutory meeting of the licensing board when an application for a new licence or the renewal of a licence is being considered. That is an entirely separate issue and not directly relevant to the matter under review today.
Section 15 gives a board the discretion whether or not to proceed to consider an application for a new licence or renewal of a licence if neither the applicant nor his
944
representative are present. Presumably, this statutory provision was made in order to prevent an applicant being unnecessarily disadvantaged through an inability to present himself at a particular meeting.
If we are looking for comparisons in the existing legislation then I suggest that Section 31 of the 1976 Act provides a more suitable example. Section 31 details the procedures for suspending an existing licence on receipt of a complaint. In these circumstances, the board must hold a hearing in the same way as is envisaged in the new arrangements to vary a licence. There is no express provision for the licensee to field a representative or to bring another person to the hearing to assist him in pleading his case. Nevertheless, the exercise of these options is accepted standard procedure which licensing boards use as appropriate.
There is nothing in the Bill as drafted to prevent a licensing board from exercising the same discretion where appropriate in relation to the procedures set out for varying current licences.
We feel that the amendment proposed is unnecessary on that basis. But it is also dangerous because it could call into question the legitimacy of existing arrangements under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and in other legislation where a representative or agent may attend in the place of, or to assist, the licensee without there being any express statutory provision.
There is potentially more to be lost by conceding this amendment than could possibly be gained. I imagine the noble Lord will want to consider the explanation that I have given. However, I hope that in the light of this response the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment today.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but Section 15(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 does not appear to cover the problem which we have in this Bill; nor does Section 31 cover it, in my view. It might lead to an interesting legal debate, but if you look at the interpretation clause of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, there is no definition of the licence holder apart from the words
"a & licence-holder' and 'holder of a licence' mean the holder of a licence under this Act other than under Part III of this Act".
That does not take us any further in terms of the amendment. The issues that were dealt with in Sections 15(1) and 31(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 do not appear to meet the practical problem which has been raised, and I know it has been debated at length and no doubt will be debated again. But it seems to me, if I may say so, that this a very simple amendment which will make no difference to the progress of applications before the licensing board and, in fact, would introduce a degree of flexibility.
However, in keeping with the other amendments which have been put before the Committee, those interested in these matters, including your Lordships, will look with interest at what the Minister has said. In the meantime, with thanks to him for his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (63) as first printed by the Comtnons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
`(aa) a person is charged with an indictable offence and he is committed for trial for the offence concerned,
(a) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer given under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (serious or complex fraud),
(ab) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer served on a magistrates' court under section 53 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (certain cases involving children),'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 50, 51, 58, 60 to 65, 72, 73, 89 and 90. Taken together, these amendments remove provisions in the Bill relating to transfer for trial and replace them with a modified procedure for committal proceedings. They also make a number of amendments to other legislation associated with these new provisions.
The transfer for trial scheme set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was intended to improve the efficiency of moving cases into the Crown Court. Importantly, it was also intended to resolve the difficulties identified by the Royal Commission and others of vulnerable witnesses being exposed to the double ordeal of giving oral evidence and being cross-examined at committal proceedings as well as at the trial itself.
These aims and objectives are widely shared by all practitioners. The Government are committed to achieving them in a way that is effective and takes full account of the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system and the experience of those working within it.
946
The work on implementation of the transfer procedures highlights certain difficulties and complexities which suggested that the transfer scheme might not in practice offer the gains in efficiency that were originally envisaged. We have concluded that the two central objectives of improved efficiency and the protection of witnesses can be better achieved by a modified form of committals of the kind proposed by the Law Society and moved, though not pressed, by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, at Committee and Report stages of the Bill in this House.
The amendments that we are considering today are long and complex but many are necessary consequential amendments to existing legislation that flow from these changes that are made to the existing committal system. The key feature of the newly modified committal procedures is that only documentary evidence and exhibits tendered by the prosecution will be admissible.
When determining whether there is a case to answer, a magistrates' court will consider such evidence only together with representations by both parties. Crucially, no witness will be called to give evidence or to be cross-examined. As I said, that form of modified committals in based on the Law Society's proposal which commanded widespread support among all practitioners. It differs in only one significant respect.
The Law Society's proposal envisaged streamlining uncontested committals by allowing cases to proceed to the Crown Court for trial without the attendance of any parties at the magistrates' court at the discretion of the defence. In that respect, our system makes no change to the existing procedures for uncontested committals. We considered whether it would be possible to follow the Law Society's approach but concluded, albeit reluctantly and for reasons that I shall explain, that it would not.
To dispense with hearings in uncontested cases, we would need a complex administrative procedure in every case to ensure that the prosecution served the case on the defence and the court sufficiently in advance of the proceedings, to ensure that the defence informed the court of its decision not to contest the case and to ensure that the court sent notice to the defence that no hearing was required. That would give rise to some of the same difficulties which caused concern in the context of the transfer scheme.
In addition, even though a committal is uncontested, there may still be a need for a hearing: for example, where there is amendment, substitution or addition of charges, or where issues relating to bail need to be resolved. Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify in advance those cases where none of those would be necessary. If it were, the Law Society's proposal might have worked.
All of that led us to decide against making any procedural changes in this respect but to focus on the principal objective of excluding oral evidence in contested committals. The issue was considered during Committee in another place, when an amendment to give effect to that aspect of the Law Society's proposal was moved but was not pressed. No change was made to the modified committal proceedings as proposed by the Government.

947
This new form of committals will involve minimal changes to existing practice and procedure. We believe that it will guarantee a scheme which will work and which has the confidence of practitioners. I hope that the House will agree that it will also achieve the goals that we all share: to improve efficiency in the courts and to give greater protection to witnesses. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise only to give a general welcome to the amendments and to the change of heart with regard to transfer of trial, which the Government have undergone. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will speak to, although of course he cannot move at this stage, the manuscript amendments to Amendment No. 90 which the Minister has included in the group but has presumably not yet spoken to in detail. I hope that she will have an opportunity to respond to the points that he makes.
What the Government are now saying is very welcome. It contrasts rather strongly with what was said in this House and I am pleased to find that 90 per cent. of the points that we made in support of this form of reform of the transfer of trial have now been accepted by the Government. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the other 10 per cent., the exception, and accept that she is right. It would not be possible to know in advance the circumstances in which that part of the Law Society's proposals would have taken effect and therefore it is better to do it in this form.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I speak, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey indicated, simply to manuscript Amendments Nos. 90A to 90F.
The Minister was good enough—I am most grateful for her helpful courtesy—to send, as it were, a briefing note to my noble friend and to me. In the briefing note relating to Amendment No. 90, there is an extremely important clause. It says: "the effect of the provisions contained in the schedule"— that is Schedule 1, the subject of Amendment No. 90—"subject to suitable safeguards". That is the important clause. The concern that we feel—it is shared by the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association—is that there are no suitable safeguards presently incorporated. Amendment No. 90, in the form of the schedule, deals with two distinct sets of circumstances. Paragraph 1 refers to statements and paragraph 2 refers to depositions. What is important about paragraph 1 is that by definition it refers to a written statement, which will not have been subject to cross-examination at the committal proceedings. It is well known that the form of a written statement in those circumstances very substantially depends on the person who took it. That is inevitable—it is not a criticism of any police officer who takes the statement and is simply the way life is.
The problem and the very deep concern that has been expressed, in particular by the Criminal Bar Association, is that there are no safeguards. If one looks at
948
sub-paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) together, the net result is that, if a written statement has been admitted in committal proceedings, it may be read as evidence in the trial of the accused in the Crown Court before the jury in certain circumstances.
I do not deal with sub-paragraph (3)(a) because that is a technical matter of form. But sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) are very important. Sub-paragraph (3)(b) indicates that the court of trial at its discretion may order that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply; in other words, exclude the evidence of the written statement.
Sub-paragraph (3)(c) gives the entitlement to a party to the proceedings to object. However, the judge may override that objection if—this is the only limit—he considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.
There are two points there which I should mention. The right of objection is given to a party, that is, the prosecution and the defence has equal right of objection. But the fact is that it will virtually never—probably never—be a written statement on behalf of the defendant that is sought to be introduced. It will virtually always—probably always—be a written statement on behalf of the prosecution to which the defence objects. The curiosity is that sub-paragraph (3)(b) entrusts the court with a discretion—undescribed, unspecified. Sub-paragraph (4) directs the court to have regard to the interests of justice. That is a curious distinction which leaps from the page.
What I say about statements, of course, applies to depositions also. The purpose of these amendments is to try to redress the balance which will be unfairly tilted against the defendant. But one would have expected some safeguards to have been included: the kind of criteria that one finds in Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. One would expect to find some categories—for instance, where a witness is dead, has been intimidated, is ill, or beyond the seas; that kind of witness. One fully understands that it may be legitimate to have the statement of such a witness given in evidence subject to the usual warning that a trial judge might give to the jury that the statement has not been cross-examined to.
It may be that the noble Baroness the Minister may be able to indicate quite clearly that the criteria in Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are intended to apply and that one will simply not have a bald discretion. After all, it is a fundamental principle of great validity and respectable antecedence that a defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to see his accuser.
These provisions are too draconian. They take away from the defendant the right to cross-examine; they take away from the jury the possibility of assessing a witness's demeanour. They may be necessary in some circumstances but the basis of my support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend is that one needs careful safeguards and one ought to limit that to specific and designated circumstances.
It is intended to be a helpful amendment in order that criminal trials, to be fair, should not only be expediently conducted from the point of view of the prosecution, complainants and witnesses for the prosecution, but

949
should also maintain a proper balance when one puts into the scales the interests of the defendant in a fair trial.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking me so carefully through that explanation. As he is aware, I only had sight of the amendments a few moments ago. We all recognise that this is a complicated matter and there is no point of principle at issue between us. The amendments are defective. But other than making that technical point, I make no other comment in that regard. I want to respond to the points being made by the noble Lord.
It may be helpful if I say a few words as regards the provisions in paragraph 1 of the new schedule introduced in Amendment No. 90 dealing with the admissibility of written statements at a trial. Put simply, the aim is to facilitate the conduct of the trial by allowing for written statements to be admitted at the trial in place of oral evidence where all parties agree. If the evidence contained in a specific statement has been admitted in earlier committal hearings and is not disputed by any parties at the trial, it would be both unnecessary and wasteful to require the presence of witnesses to give that evidence again orally. That is a practice which already exists and we are not seeking to introduce anything new or revolutionary in the current provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made light of the limitation which exists in relation to the "interests of justice", to which I shall turn in a moment. He described it as a "bald" discretion. There must be an opportunity for a party to object and for the witness to be called. But that is provided for by paragraph 1(3)(c). In such circumstances the provision makes clear that the witness will be called to give evidence orally unless the trial judge decides that it would not be in the interests of justice to allow that to happen. However, the court would have to be satisfied that it was in the interests of justice.
It is not a new test. It is the test that the court must apply in looking at questions of admissibility. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Acts 1925 and 1988 we are not seeking to change the way in which that test is interpreted. The fact that the provision does not elaborate on that phrase does not mean that the test is in any way different. It must also be right to allow that element of discretion since there may be circumstances in which it would be impossible to ensure a witness's attendance. For example, if, since making the original written statement, the witness had died or moved abroad and was unable to be contacted, it would be wrong for one party to be able to preclude such evidence merely by objecting. The judge must be able to say whether or not, in the interests of justice, such evidence should be admitted.
I believe the anxiety over the way in which the provision will work in practice is misplaced. We are not seeking to introduce any fundamental changes to the interests of justice test and do not believe that the provision does so. Of course, we shall monitor that
950
position in the future to see whether any difficulties arise and take appropriate action if necessary. I do not believe that it will come to that.
The only final point I want to add is that the interests of justice test—we see it as a limitation but it is an important point to make—is appealable. If the power is exercised wrongly by the courts or in a way that concerns the defence, the decision can be appealed against. Therefore, recognising the point being made by the noble Lord, I hope with that explanation he will feel able to accept the government amendments and not press his own.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I can deal with this matter. I am grateful for the tone of the Minister's response. I am familiar with the present practice that, where all parties agree, a statement can be read and juries are directed that they must treat the evidence which is read in exactly the same way as though the witness had attended to give evidence orally.
The interests of justice is a broad concept and one simply looks for some headings by which a trial judge may be guided. It is true that the wrongful admission of evidence can be appealed against, and the appeal may be successful. But, bearing in mind the present state of the criminal listings in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, that is of little benefit to a defendant who may have been wrongly convicted and who has had to wait nine or 12 months before his appeal is heard. Surely it is better to get things right rather than to wait for appeal after they have gone wrong.
I am grateful that the Minister was able to say unequivocally that the present safeguards are intended to subsist and continue; that is, the safeguards already spoken about and in particular those found in Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I indicated that where a witness is dead or unavailable there may be legitimate reasons to have the statement read. But the fundamental principle remains, and it is important: the presumption should be that a witness ought to attend for cross-examination so that the defendant may confront his accuser. I repeat that there remains doubt about this matter and I invite the Minister to consider that if there is a lingering doubt—to use a phrase from another context—it ought to be reconsidered more fully in another place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am not entitled to intervene at this stage, but I merely rise to inquire as to the present procedural position. I understood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had tabled two manuscript amendments which he would not move but to which he was speaking. I gather that the view was that those amendments were unavailable at this stage to enable them to be moved. However, I thought that with the Commons amendments that we are considering, a manuscript amendment was in order. In any event, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has spoken after the Minister as though he had a substantial amendment tabled.

951
I may have misunderstood the position entirely. I rather gather from the aspect of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I have. I only intervene to ask for enlightenment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can respond and say that I am afraid the noble and learned Lord has, to some extent, misunderstood. The Minister moved Amendment No. 1 and spoke to a group of amendments, including Amendment No. 90. We could not move manuscript amendments—a copy of which the noble and learned Lord now has—to Amendment No. 90 but, as Amendment No. 90 had been spoken to by the Minister, it was felt proper that we should speak to them now. The Minister will have a right of reply to the debate on Amendment No. 1, which is the only Motion now before the House.
My noble friend was seeking some indication from the Minister that even if there is the merest scintilla of doubt in the Government's mind about the validity of the point being made in the manuscript amendments, it would be for the benefit of Parliament if the Minister were to accept those amendments, acknowledging that they are defective and that the outcome may not be the same, in order that the matter can be discussed between the Home Office and the Criminal Law Bar Association and resolved before such amendments go back to the Commons.
We make no party political point about this at all. All we are saying is that if these amendments are not accepted, there is no possibility of further parliamentary consideration of this rather technical issue. I appeal to the Minister now to indicate that for the purposes only of further discussion and without commitment to the outcome, she is prepared to accept even one of the manuscript amendments.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not want to give the commitment that we shall accept these amendments today. Interestingly, when I was preparing for today, without the additional six amendments to Amendment No. 90, I had anticipated that there might be some concern about the issue and that it might be brought to our notice.
There are two matters. I have given a commitment to monitor this matter. The other is that in practice we have the test of "in the interests of justice" being applied, but we do not have sufficient concern about it to accept that it is going to be a problem area. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is worried about its application. That is important. The noble Lord drew on the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and I shall say a word on that. It is well established that the courts at present enjoy a discretion to exclude evidence admissible under Section 13(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. In deciding whether to admit such evidence, case law has held that the courts should apply the "interests of justice" test laid down in Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which I believe is the part referred to by the noble Lord.
952
It is anticipated that under the new arrangements the courts will, as now, turn for guidance to Section 26 of the 1988 Act for assistance in applying the provisions in the new schedule to the Bill. We believe that with that body of case law and the continuing habit of referring back for guidance as to how this measure will apply in practice, that is sufficient. Therefore, I argue that the amendments I have pressed on the House today should be accepted and the manuscript amendments rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again with the leave of the House and before the Minister sits down and the Question on Amendment No.1 is put, perhaps I may make one last appeal. If the Minister rejects the amendments to Amendment No. 90, the issue is dead and the Bill becomes law this afternoon. There is no possibility of rethinking of any kind. For the sake of a few days' delay in obtaining Royal Assent, can she not consider the matter further? We shall make no political point about it. Whatever conclusion is come to, there will be no delay and we will let the measure pass on the nod. On this occasion can she consider the possibility of letting one of these amendments go through so that the matter can be considered again with those who are very concerned in the Criminal Bar Association? They may be wrong. I am not saying they are right. But at least their views can be heard. They are very late in putting them forward and culpable in that respect. However, there should be an opportunity just to consider the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot invite the House to accept that proposal. "In the interests of justice" is a tried and tested test. We believe that there is a sufficient body of case law to act as guidance for its application in these circumstances. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a sufficient case at this late stage on this particular issue for accepting six new amendments to be sent to another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 3, page 2, line 32, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 16, 17, 21 to 23, 25 and 26.
These amendments clarify the definition of "prosecution material" in Clauses 3, 7, 8, and 9. Under the Bill at present, the prosecutor in any particular case must consider whether to disclose any material in the possession of any prosecutor, or inspected by any prosecutor in pursuance of the code of practice, whether or not it has any bearing on the particular case he is prosecuting. This imposes an impossible and unnecessary burden on the prosecutor. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 rectify this unintended consequence by limiting prosecution material to material which is in the prosecutor's possession or which he has inspected in connection with the case against the accused. All the other amendments are consequential.

953
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— '(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 3, page 2, line 37, leave out 'making a copy of it and giving the copy' and insert 'securing that a copy is made of it and that the copy is given'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 to Clause 3(3) and (4) are designed to reflect more closely the existing responsibilities of the police and the prosecutor in copying material to the accused. At present, where the police give a copy of the material to the prosecutor, and it is disclosable, either the police or the prosecutor will then give a copy to the accused. But Clause 3(3) and (4) place the duty of copying to the accused on the prosecutor in all circumstances. The amendments provide that the prosecutor must secure that a copy is made and given to the accused, leaving it open whether the police or the prosecutor will do the actual copying.
Amendment No. 5 is a technical amendment designed to reflect developments in technology. Clause 3(3)(a) provides for the prosecutor to disclose material by making a copy of it and giving the copy to the accused. This implies that the copy will be in the same form as it was when it reached the prosecutor. But it may well be more efficient, particularly in cases with a large volume of written material, for the material to be scanned on to a computer and disclosed on a computer disk. The information would be the same as before but it would be recorded in a different form. Amendment No. 5 makes that possible.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert— 'and a copy may be in such form as the prosecutor thinks fit and need not be in the same form as that in which the information has already been recorded.'
954
6 Page 3. line 2, leave out 'making a copy of it and giving the copy' and insert 'securing that a copy is made of it and that the copy is given'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out from 'during' to end of line 21 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 18, 27, 30 to 34 and 37 to 39. The substantive amendments are the three new clauses contained in Amendments Nos. 27, 38 and 39. They are designed to introduce some flexibility into the provisions of the Bill relating to the timing of prosecution and defence disclosure.
The Bill as it left this House required the prosecutor and the accused to make disclosure within a period to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations. It is intended to prescribe a standard period which should be sufficient for the majority of cases. Disclosure may take longer in some cases where, for example, there is a large amount of material to consider or it is necessary to secure a court ruling on the disclosure of sensitive material. In those cases more time may be needed to comply with the Bill's disclosure duties. But the Bill does not provide for the disclosure time limits to be extended. Amendment No. 38 remedies this by widening the regulation-making power so that it may make provision to allow the prosecutor and the accused to make disclosure within an extended period if the court agrees to an application for extension. Inserting this new clause into Part I of the Bill requires us to make a number of consequential amendments, and Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 13, 18, 30 to 34 and 37 achieve this.
Because the prosecutor will be required to make disclosure within a time limit, whether original or extended, there is a risk of the accused trying to have the proceedings aborted if the prosecutor is a few days late. Amendment No. 27 guards against this. It provides that a failure to make prosecution disclosure within a time limit does not of itself constitute grounds for staying proceedings for abuse of process. But the protection does not apply if the delay by the prosecutor is such as to prevent the accused receiving a fair trial.
Finally, Amendment No. 39 provides a transitional arrangement until such time as regulations are made for prosecution disclosure. The new disclosure regime is different from the old and we are not going to know what the time limits for prosecution disclosure ought to be until the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have gained some practical experience of operating the new system. Accordingly, Amendment No. 39 requires the prosecutor to make disclosure as soon as is

955
reasonably practicable after the duty arises. That will enable us to monitor the operation of the new system and to collect information as a basis on which to develop time limits for prosecution disclosure.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not in any way criticise the substance of this group of amendments. However, from the drafting point of view, I think that Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 go into too much unnecessary detail and that a more compendious method of stating the matter in general terms would have served the purpose. The more detail that we go into in procedures relating to either civil or criminal proceedings, the greater the excuses for one side or another to take advantage of very small points. I say no more.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 4 and insert— '(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (2B), this section applies where—

(a) this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2), and

(b) the prosecutor complies with section 3 or purports to comply with it.

(2) Where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(a). this section does not apply unless—

(a) a copy of the notice of transfer, and

(b) copies of the documents containing the evidence,

have been given to the accused under regulations made under section 5(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
(2A) Where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(ab), this section does not apply unless—

(a) a copy of the notice of transfer, and

(b) copies of the documents containing the evidence,

have been given to the accused under regulations made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
(2B) Where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(c), this section does not apply unless the prosecutor has served on the accused a copy of the indictment and a copy of the set of documents containing the evidence which is the basis of the charge.'.
9 Page 4, line 4, at beginning insert 'Where this section applies'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I note that the Minister did not refer to the original amendment. We have no objection at all to her continuing not to do so throughout these proceedings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
956
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Page 4, line 4, after 'the' insert 'court and the'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, 35 and 36.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 provide that when a defence statement is given to the prosecutor under Clauses 5 or 6, it must also be given to the court. The reason for these amendments is that the court will need to have a copy of the defence statement before it can decide under Clause 10 whether an inference should be drawn from a failure in defence disclosure. All the other amendments are consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Page 4, line 25, leave out from 'during' to end of line 27 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
12 Clause 6, page 4, line 31, leave out 'accused may give a defence statement to the prosecutor; and subsections' and insert 'accused—

(a) may give a defence statement to the prosecutor, and

(b) if he does so, must also give such a statement to the court.

(2A) Subsections'.
13 Page 4, line 35, leave out from 'during' to end of line 36 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
14 Clause 7, page 4, line 38, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
15 Page 4, line 43, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
16 Page 5, line 4, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
17 Page 5, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— `(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'
18 Page 5, line 18, leave out from 'during' to end of line 20 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
19 Clause 8, page 5, line 22, leave out `to the prosecutor'.
20 Page 5, line 27, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
21 Page 5, line 32, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
22 Page 5, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— `(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'
23 Page 5, line 38, at end insert 'in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
24 Clause 9, page 6, line 26, leave out `to the prosecutor'.
25 Page 6, line 32, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
26 Page 6, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— `(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'

957
27 After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
PROSECUTOR'S FAILURE TO OBSERVE TIME LIMITS
'.—(1) This section applies if the prosecutor—

(a) purports to act under section 3 after the end of the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 3, or

(b) purports to act under section 7 after the end of the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 7.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the failure to act during the period concerned does not on its own constitute grounds for staying the proceedings for abuse of process.
(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the failure constituting such grounds if it involves such delay by the prosecutor that the accused is denied a fair trial.'
28 Page 7, line 4, leave out 'the prosecutor'.
29 Page 7, line 5, leave out 'the prosecutor'.
30 Page 7, line 6, leave out 'mentioned in section 5(7)' and insert 'which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 5'.
31 Page 7, line 7, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
32 Page 7, line 10, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
33 Page 7, line 13, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
34 Page 7, line 15, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
35 Page 7, line 19, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
36 Pagc 7, line 20, leave out 'the prosecutor'.
37 Page 7, leave out line 21 and insert 'which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 6'.
38 After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
TIME LIMITS
'.—(1) This section has effect for the purpose of determining the relevant period for sections 3, 5, 6 and 7.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the relevant period is a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes by regulations for the purposes of the section concerned.
(3) The regulations may do one or more of the following—

(a) provide that the relevant period for any section shall if the court so orders be extended (or further extended) by so many days as the court specifies;

(b) provide that the court may only make such an order if an application is made by a prescribed person and if any other prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(c) provide that an application may only be made if prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(d) provide that the number of days by which a period may be extended shall be entirely at the court's discretion;

(e) provide that the number of days by which a period may be extended shall not exceed a prescribed number;

(f) provide that there shall be no limit on the number of applications that may be made to extend a period;

(g) provide that no more than a prescribed number of applications may be made to extend a period;

and references to the relevant period for a section shall be construed accordingly.
(4) Conditions mentioned in subsection (3) may be framed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), so far as the relevant period for section 3 or 7 is concerned—

(a) conditions may be framed by reference to the nature or volume of the material concerned;

958

(b) the nature of material may be defined by reference to the prosecutor's belief that the question of non-disclosure on grounds of public interest may arise.

(6) In subsection (3) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.'
39 Insert the following new clause—
TIME LIMITS: TRANSITIONAL
`.—(1) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section (Time limits) have come into force for the purposes of section 3, section 3(8) shall have effect as if it read—
"(8) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after—

(a) the accused pleads not guilty (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1)),

(b) the accused is committed for trial (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(aa)),

(c) the proceedings are transferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(a) or (ab)),

(d) the count is included in the indictment (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(b)), or

(e) the bill of indictment is preferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(c))."

(2) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section (Time limits) have come into force for the purposes of section 7, section 7(7) shall have effect as if it read—
"(7) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after the accused gives a defence statement under section 5 or 6."'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 39 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 39.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
40 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATIONS: OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
'Where—

(a) an application is made under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(5), 9(8), 11(2) or 12(4),

(b) a person claiming to have an interest in the material applies to be heard by the court, and

(c) he shows that he was involved (whether alone or with others and whether directly or indirectly) in the prosecutor's attention being brought to the material,

the court must not make an order under section 3(6), 7(5). 8(5), 9(8), 11(3) or 12(5) (as the case may be) unless the person applying under paragraph (b) has been given an opportunity to be heard.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.
This new clause is designed for situations where a third party, such as a local authority social services department, is the originator of sensitive material which is put before a court for a decision on disclosure to the accused. Under the Bill at present, only the prosecutor can make representations to the court about the material.

959
But the third party may well be more knowledgeable about the material and may be better placed to argue the issue of disclosure. Under the new clause, the third party would be able to instruct separate counsel if necessary to make representations to the court.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, this very day I have been dealing with exactly this point. It is extremely important that the third party should be able to address the court on this matter. I am delighted to see this provision being inserted into the Bill as amended.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
41 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION
—(1) If the accused is given or allowed to inspect a document or other object under—

(a) section 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 or 12, or

(b) an order under section 8,

then, subject to subsections (2) to (4), he must not use or disclose it or any information recorded in it.
(2) The accused may use or disclose the object or information—

(a) in connection with 'the proceedings for whose purposes he was given the object or allowed to inspect it,

(b) with a view to the taking of further criminal proceedings (for instance, by way of appeal) with regard to the matter giving rise to the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c) in connection with the proceedings first mentioned in paragraph (b).

(3) The accused may use or disclose—

(a) the object to the extent that it has been displayed to the public in open court, or

(b) the information to the extent that it has been communicated to the public in open court;

but the preceding provisions of this subsection do not apply if the object is displayed or the information is communicated in proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section (Confidentiality: contravention).
(4) If—

(a) the accused applies to the court for an order granting permission to use or disclose the object or information, and

(b) the court makes such an order,

the accused may use or disclose the object or information for the purpose and to the extent specified by the court.
(5) An application under subsection (4) may be made and dealt with at any time, and in particular after the accused has been acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor has decided not to proceed with the case concerned; but this is subject to rules made by virtue of section 13(2).
(6) Where—

(a) an application is made under subsection (4), and

(b) the prosecutor or a person claiming to have an interest in the object or information applies to be heard by the court,

960
the court must not make an order granting permission unless the person applying under paragraph (b) has been given an opportunity to be heard.
(7) References in this section to the court are to—

(a) a magistrates' court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1);

(b) the Crown Court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2).

(8) Nothing in this section affects any other restriction or prohibition on the use or disclosure of an object or information, whether the restriction or prohibition arises under an enactment (whenever passed) or otherwise.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42.
The aim of these amendments is to ensure the confidentiality of unused material that is disclosed by the prosecutor, under Part I of the Bill, to the accused. Your Lordships will recall that I indicated during our Third Reading debate that it was our intention to bring forward amendments to this effect.
I begin with the new clause introduced to the Bill by Amendment No. 41. The purpose of this new clause is to protect unused material disclosed to the accused under Part I of the Bill by requiring it to be treated confidentially. The only reason that the accused has access to this material is that the prosecution has disclosed it. It may contain sensitive or potentially embarrassing information about other people, which could be used to harass witnesses or even for blackmail. It may be used for financial gain or published without authorisation. All of these mischiefs would be tackled at source by this clause. The accused will be able to use disclosed unused material to prepare his or her defence, or any appeal, but could not use the material for other purposes unless the court gives permission.
I should also emphasise that this protection applies to unused material only—it does not apply to the prosecution case which is served on the defence which will form the major part of court proceedings, or to anything read out in open court. Court proceedings are, in most cases, open to the press and public and it would not be appropriate to place any special duty of confidentiality on the accused in respect of this material.
The new clause that is introduced by Amendment No. 42 makes contravening the confidentiality requirement, established in the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 41, punishable as a contempt of court. The penalties available to the courts are similar to those in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The court that heard the original case for which the material was disclosed will consider any contempt arising from misuse. The courts will have power to confiscate any protected material that has been misused, as well as to penalise the misuse.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

961
COMMONNS AMENDMENT
42 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIALITY: CONTRAVENTION
'.—(1) It is a contempt of court for a person knowingly to use or disclose an object or information recorded in it if the use or disclosure is in contravention of section (Confidentiality of disclosed information).
(2) The following courts have jurisdiction to deal with a person who is guilty of a contempt under this section—

(a) a magistrates' court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1);

(b) the Crown Court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2).

(3) A person who is guilty of a contempt under this section may be dealt with as follows—

(a) a magistrates' court may commit him to custody for a specified period not exceeding six months or impose on him a fine not exceeding £5,000 or both;

(b) the Crown Court may commit him to custody for a specified period not exceeding two years or impose a fine on him or both.

(4) If—

(a) a person is guilty of a contempt under this section, and

(b) the object concerned is in his possession,

the court finding him guilty may order that the object shall be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
(5) The power of the court under subsection (4) includes power to order the object to be destroyed or to be given to the prosecutor or to be placed in his custody for such period as the court may specify.
(6) If—

(a) the court proposes to make an order under subsection (4), and

(b) the person found guilty, or any other person claiming to have an interest in the object, applies to be heard by the court,

the court must not make the order unless the applicant has been given an opportunity to be heard.
(7) If—

(a) a person is guilty of a contempt under this section, and

(b) a copy of the object concerned is in his possession,

the court finding him guilty may order that the copy shall be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
(8) Subsections (5) and (6) apply for the purposes of subsection (7) as they apply for the purposes of subsection (4), but as if references to the object were references to the copy.
(9) An object or information shall be inadmissible as evidence in civil proceedings if to adduce it would in the opinion of the court be likely to constitute a contempt under this section; and "the court" here means the court before which the civil proceedings are being taken.
(10) The powers of a magistrates' court under this section may be exercised either of the court's own motion or by order on complaint.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
962
COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 13, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
`(aa) proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section (Confidentiality: contravention);'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 49.
These amendments are consequential on the new clauses which relate to representations by third parties at disclosure hearings, confidentiality of unused material, and disclosure time limits. They provide for rules of court to be made governing the practice and procedure for applications to the court under these new clauses and the resulting court orders.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
44 Clause 13, page 9, line 6, leave out 'or 12(4)' and insert `,12(4), (Applications: opportunity to be heard)(b), (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(4) or (6)(b) or (Confidentiality: contravention)(6)'.
45 Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
'(aa) an application under regulations made under section (Time limits);'.
46 Page 9, line 8. leave out '11(3)' and insert '3(6), 7(5), 8(2) or
(5), 9(8), 11(3), (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(4) or (Confidentiality: contravention)(4) or (7)'.
47 Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
'(d) an order under regulations made under section (Time limits).'
48 Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by virtue of subsection (2)(aa) above may contain or include provision equivalent to Schedule 3 to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (proceedings for disobeying magistrates' court order) with any modifications which the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate on the advice of or after consultation with the rule committee for magistrates' courts.
(2B) Rules made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) in relation to an application under section (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(4) may include provision—

(a) that an application to a magistrates' court must be made to a particular magistrates' court;

(b) that an application to the Crown Court must be made to the Crown Court sitting at a particular place;

(c) requiring persons to be notified of an application.'

49 Page 9, line II, leave out 'subsection (I)' and insert 'this section'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 49.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

963
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
50 Clause 15, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
'(ab) the accused is committed for trial (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(aa))'.
51 Page 10, line 14, after '(a)' insert 'or (ab)'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Clause 17, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
`(aa) that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued;'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.
Amendment No. 52 ensures that the code of practice to be prepared under Part II of the Bill must require an investigator to take all reasonable steps for the purposes of a criminal investigation and in particular must pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry.
This amendment arises from the Government's response to Chapter K5 of the Scott Report, which is concerned with prosecution procedures. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's response in a Written Answer on Thursday 6th June and in a more detailed paper which was placed in the Library of the House.
The Scott Report made eight recommendations about prosecution procedures. These were directed at what Sir Richard perceived as a failure to gather relevant material, confusion over what inquiries had been made, and failures in disclosure. His recommendations were based on existing law and he recognised that they needed to be considered against the provisions of this Bill.
The Bill and the code partly address Sir Richard's concerns by providing for a clear audit trail whenever requests for documents elicit items which may be relevant to the investigation, and by imposing specific new disclosure duties on the prosecutor and the accused which are designed to clarify the issues in dispute. But something more is needed. We think that the code of practice should require the investigator to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry in a criminal investigation, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. This should help to ensure that relevant material is not overlooked. It also provides statutory backing for what is already regarded as good investigative practice.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 53 to 55. One of the matters which the code of practice must be designed to secure in Clause 17(1)(e) is that where the prosecutor inspects material held by the police and he asks them to disclose it to the accused the accused is allowed to
964
inspect it or is given a copy. This provision prevents the police disclosing material to the accused which the prosecutor has not inspected. But in cases involving a large volume of material it may be in everyone's interest to allow such disclosure. For example, the police may have obtained 1,000 very similar invoices, and it may be clear to the prosecutor from inspecting 50 of them that all of them ought to be disclosed to the accused. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 make this possible. Amendment No. 55 is consequential.
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. The effect of Clauses 18(2) and 18(3) is that all material retained by the police in the course of a criminal investigation must be described on either a sensitive or a non-sensitive schedule and that schedule is given to the prosecutor. Amendment No. 56 is designed to protect exceptionally sensitive material such as a list of the names and addresses of a number of police informants. Current police practice is not to describe such material on the sensitive schedule but to tell the prosecutor about it and invite him or her to inspect it. The amendment ensures that the code can reflect current practice and, in particular, that the prosecutor must be told of the material and invited to inspect it. Amendment No. 57 ensures that matters prescribed under Clause 18 are prescribed under the code. There is an identical provision in Clause 17(8).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe Amendment No. 52 to be of great value, reinforced as it is by the Minister's indication that all reasonable lines of inquiry embrace those which may point to an acquittal. This is an extremely valuable amendment, and I welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
53 Clause 17, page 11, line 3, leave out from 'where' to `and' in line 4 and insert 'such a person inspects information or other material in pursuance of a requirement that it be revealed to him,'.
54 Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
`(ee) that where such a person is given a document indicating the nature of information or other material in pursuance of a requirement that it be revealed to him, and he requests that it be disclosed to the accused, the accused is allowed to inspect it or is given a copy of it;'.
55 Page 11, line 11, after '(e)' insert 'or (ee)'.
56 Clause 18, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
'(6A) The code may provide that if the person required to reveal material has possession of material which he believes is sensitive and of such a nature that provision contained in the code by virtue of subsection (2) should not apply with regard to it—

(a) that provision shall not apply with regard to the material,

(b) he must notify a person identified in accordance with prescribed provisions of the existence of the material, and

(c) he must allow the person so notified to inspect the material.'

965
57 Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
'(8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the code.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Clause 22, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
`(aa) on or after the appointed day the accused is committed for trial for the offence concerned,'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 Clause 28, page 17, line 10, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 88, 91 and 92. Amendments Nos. 59 and 91 are technical amendments to remove an inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 74 is designed to ensure that the amendment to Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 which is made by Clause 54 applies in relation to things done or omitted on or after a day appointed for the purpose of Clause 54 by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 88 removes Clause 62(2) which provides that nothing in the Bill imposes any charge on the people or on public funds. It was inserted by this House to avoid questions of privilege.
Finally, Amendment No. 92 is a technical amendment to Schedule 2 which takes account of the fact that a preparatory hearing may be ordered under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 where a case has been committed for trial under the provisions reinstated by other amendments to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
60 Clause 33, page 20, line 19, after 'after' insert 'the accused has been committed for trial for the offence concerned or after'.
61 Leave out Clause 38 and insert the following new clause—
REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
`.—(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
(2) Section 44 and Schedule 4 (which provide for transfer for trial instead of committal proceedings) shall be omitted.
966
(3) In each of sections 34, 36 and 37 for paragraph (a) of subsection (2) (magistrates' court proceeding with a view to transfer) there shall be substituted—
"(a) a magistrates' court inquiring into the offence as examining justices;".
(4) Sections 34(7), 36(8) and 37(7) (transitional) shall be omitted.
(5) In Schedule 11 (repeals) the entries relating to the following (which concern committal, transfer and other matters) shall be omitted—

(a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;

(b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;

(c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";

(d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";

(e) in section 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the words "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and", "which respectively allow", "committal proceedings and in other", "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980", "which punish the making of", "102 or" and ", as the case may be", and section 46(2) of that Act;

(f) in section 32(1)(6) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 the words "tried or";

(g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";

(h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(1)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

(i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";

(j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";

(k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;

(1) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;

(m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or", and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.

(6) The 1994 Act shall be treated as having been enacted with the amendments made by subsections (2) and (5).
(7) Subsections (3) and (4) apply where a magistrates' court begins to inquire into an offence as examining justices after the day on which this Act is passed.'
62 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
NOTICES OF TRANSFER
'.—(1) Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (notices of transfer in cases of serious or complex fraud) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (9)(a) (regulations) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".

967
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (9)—
"(9A) Regulations under subsection (9)(a) above may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(4) In Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (notices of transfer in certain cases involving children) paragraph 4 (regulations) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".
(6) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)—
"(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(7) In paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act (reporting restrictions) in sub-paragraph (8) for the words "sub-paragraphs (5) and (6)" there shall be substituted "sub-paragraphs (5) and (7)".
(8) This section applies where a notice of transfer is given under section 4 of the 1987 Act or served under section 53 of the 1991 Act (as the case may be) on or after the appointed day.
(9) The reference in subsection (8) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
63 Insert the following new clause—
WAR CRIMES: ABOLITION OF TRANSFER PROCEDURE
'.—(1) In the War Crimes Act 1991—

(a) in section 1(4) (which introduces the Schedule providing a procedure for use instead of committal proceedings for certain war crimes) the words "England, Wales or" shall be omitted, and

(b) Part I of the Schedule (procedure for use in England and Wales instead of committal proceedings) shall be omitted.

(2) In section 20(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (power of magistrates' court to grant legal aid for Crown Court proceedings)—

(a) the word "or" shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b), and

(b) paragraph (bb) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part I of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall be omitted.'

64 Insert the following new clause—
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
'Schedule (Committal proceedings) to this Act (which contains provisions about committal proceedings and related matters) shall have effect.'
65 Leave out Clause 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 to 65.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 to 65.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
968
COMMONS AMENDMENT
66 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
SUMMONS TO WITNESS AND WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST
`.-(1) In section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2A)—
"(2B) A justice may refuse to issue a summons under subsection (1) above in relation to the summary trial of an information if he is not satisfied that an application for the summons was made by a party to the case as soon as reasonably practicable after the accused pleaded not guilty.
(2C) In relation to the summary trial of an information, subsection (2) above shall have effect as if the reference to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) above included a reference to the matter mentioned in subsection (2B) above."
(2) This section applies in relation to any proceedings for the purpose of which no summons has been issued under section 97(1), and no warrant has been issued under section 97(2), before the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 which introduce new clauses concerning procedures for issuing witness summonses. These are the means by which reluctant witnesses are brought to court to give oral evidence or to produce documentary evidence. They are also the means used to achieve third party disclosure in criminal cases.
I indicated at Third Reading that it was the Government's intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill to improve arrangements for third party disclosure in criminal proceedings. We were not able to do so until the Bill had passed to another place because of our wish to consult widely on what is a complex area. The changes that are reflected in these amendments are modest. We do not regard them as the final word on third party disclosure. It is our intention to look again at procedures for disclosure by third parties once we are able to assess the practical benefits of the new arrangements that are set out in Amendments Nos. 66, 70 and 71. Although modest, the changes that are proposed, and which have been drawn up in consultation with the judiciary and with many of those potential third parties directly affected by the changes, are nevertheless in our view sensible, practicable and helpful. I hope that the House will agree.
Amendment No. 66 deals with the procedures in the magistrates' courts. It will enable the justices to take account of the timeliness of an application for a witness summons and give them discretion not to issue a summons. Late applications are a problem for both third parties and the court. This provision should encourage earlier applications without penalising those who may have good reason for a last minute application.
Amendment No. 70 replaces the existing provisions for witness summons in the Crown Court. At present a witness summons in the Crown Court is issued automatically and can be challenged by a third party

969
who has to prove that he or she should not disclose material. The amendment allows for new procedures such that in most cases witness summonses will be issued by the court only on an application. The application for a witness summons has to be justified, specific and timely. Provision is made for the third party to apply to be heard before the summons is issued. The court will also be able to order advance disclosure of documents in a witness summons after which the witness may be stood down if his or her evidence is not required.
There are circumstances in which the Crown Court will need to act of its own motion. I have in mind, in particular, letters of request which are made under the terms of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 in respect of foreign proceedings. In such cases the Secretary of State nominates a court to take evidence under Section 4 of the 1990 Act. The court issues a witness summons, as necessary, of its own motion. New Section 2D inserted by Amendment No. 70 ensures that this can continue to happen and that we can continue to comply with the terms of the 1990 Act.
Amendment No. 71 simply ensures that the Crown Court is able to enforce a witness summons. It allows the Crown Court to issue a warrant to arrest the witness if he or she fails to comply with the summons.
Finally, Amendment No. 69 concerns witness orders. Unimplemented provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolished witness orders. Amendment No. 69 makes similar provision. The notification of witnesses to attend court will instead be achieved by a new administrative procedure. Crown Courts retain their powers to issue a witness summons to ensure the attendance at court of reluctant witnesses.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, leaving aside the international dimension—which does not come my way very often—the rest of these amendments appear to me to be wholly admirable and will be very helpful for the administration of justice in the courts with which I deal.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have no difficulty with these amendments. I should like to put a question to the noble Baroness. If she does not want to answer it today perhaps she can deal with it by way of correspondence. Given the number of criminal justice Acts which are being significantly amended, is this area likely to be a priority candidate for consolidation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, unequivocally yes. The answer to the noble Lord's question lies ultimately with my masters. However, on the basis of the number of Acts to which I have referred in speaking to these amendments, the case for consolidation is well made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
67 After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
ROAD TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT: PROVISION OF SPECIMENS
.—(1) In section 7(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (provision of blood or urine in course of investigating whether certain road traffic offences have been committed) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(bb) a device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above has been used at the police station but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned, or".
(2) In section 31(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (provision of blood or urine in course of investigating whether certain offences have been committed by persons working on transport systems) the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(bb) a device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above has been used at the police station but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned, or".
(3) This section applies where it is proposed to make a requirement mentioned in section 7(3) of the 1988 Act or section 31(3) of the 1992 Act after the appointed day.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.
The new clause ensures that the police can make full use of new evidential breath testing equipment, which will shortly be available, by continuing to be able to exercise their existing discretion to require blood or urine samples from suspected drink drivers in certain situations. It makes similar provision in the Transport and Works Act which provides a scheme for dealing with railway employees suspected of exceeding the alcohol limit.
The existing breath testing equipment at police stations was introduced in 1983 and we need to plan ahead for its replacement. Technology has moved on since 1983, as have the international standards on breath testing. The new equipment therefore incorporates some new software which enables it to identify and flag up automatically certain situations which are currently catered for by operational arrangements. Put simply, these cover situations where it is suspected an interfering substance may be present, or the alleged offender produces mouth alcohol or the difference between the reading for two breath samples is greater than 15 per cent. In such situations, the machine will advise the operator and the constable should then be able to require a blood or urine sample as an alternative.
The existing provisions in Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 do not currently allow specimens to be required in a situation where a properly working

971
machine indicates such readings. The new clause therefore extends the police's existing discretion to allow specimens to be taken in such situations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the new clause is of some importance to motorists. As I understand the present law, if a motorist is given a breath test and it shows that he may be outside the limit that is allowed, he is entitled to call for another test (blood or urine). I am not sure how this new clause will work. It gives the constable the opportunity to decide whether the breath test could have been inaccurate.
If the breath test shows that the motorist is in the clear—in other words, it does not show that he has taken enough alcohol to convict him—but the constable thinks that the breath test should have shown that he has taken more alcohol, the constable can then require a urine or blood test. I am not sure whether in those circumstances the rights of motorists to claim that as the breath test was all right, it shall hold. I hope that I am not being unfair to my noble friend. I have not given her notice of this question, but it is a point that we should consider in passing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that if someone is stopped on the side of the road and given a breath test, that information is not admissible in court. The person would need to be returned to the police station, and an evidential breath test would then be taken. The existing equipment, as I understand it, measures for alcohol. If the machine was not there or was malfunctioning in some way, the police could resort to a urine or blood sample for a measurement.
As I understand it, the new machinery, which is not yet in everyday use, can measure not just levels of alcohol but can flag up for the person using the machine that there is another interfering substance present; for example, drugs. Because the law in the past has dealt with only one type of equipment and one set of circumstances in which that secondary equipment may be bypassed for a urine or blood sample, we have had to make this small adjustment to this law so that the constable concerned can resort to a blood or urine sample on grounds other than the machine not working or not being present.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
CHECKS AGAINST FINGERPRINTS ETC
`.—(1) In section 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) (checks against fingerprints etc. where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence)—
"(1) Where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence or has been charged with such an offence or has been informed that he will be reported for such an offence, fingerprints or samples or the information derived from samples taken under any power conferred by this Part of this Act from the person may be checked against—
972

(a) other fingerprints or samples to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held by or on behalf of a police force (or police forces) falling within subsection (1A) below or are held in connection with or as a result of an investigation of an offence;

(b) information derived from other samples if the information is contained in records to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(1A) Each of the following police forces falls within this subsection—

(a) a police force within the meaning given by section 62 of the Police Act 1964 (which relates to England and Wales);

(b) a police force within the meaning given by section 50 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

(c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve;

(d) the States of Jersey Police Force;

(e) the salaried police force of the Island of Guernsey;

(f) the Isle of Man Constabulary."

(2) This section applies where a person—

(a) is arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence,

(b) is charged with a recordable offence, or

(c) is informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence,

after the day on which this Act is passed.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.
This new clause is designed to enable the police in England and Wales speculatively to search DNA and fingerprint information taken under powers conferred by Part V of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as inserted by Section 56 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) from a person who has been charged with or informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence. It will also enable them to cross-search that information against other such information which has been taken and retained lawfully as part of the investigation of an offence anywhere in the United Kingdom.
It is needed because existing provisions covering powers to search do not cover fingerprints or samples taken from a person who has not been arrested, convicted or cautioned, and they do not contain any specific authority to cross-search information collected in different jurisdictions within the UK.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly what will happen in relation to police forces in other parts of the UK. The police in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man do not currently have the power to take DNA samples but they do take fingerprints and the new clause will allow for cross-searching of the fingerprints.
Amendment No. 105 to Schedule 3 achieves for the police in Northern Ireland what this amendment achieves for the police in England and Wales.
The powers which are conferred on the police in England and Wales by virtue of this new clause already apply in Scotland. Scottish common law gives police

973
forces in Scotland the power to search lawfully held prints, impressions and samples and information derived therefrom.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
69 After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
ABOLITION OF WITNESS ORDERS
'.—(1) Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (examining justices to order witness to attend and give evidence before Crown Court) shall be omitted.
(2) In that Act the following words shall be omitted—

(a) in section 3(1) the words "witness order or";

(b) in section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or";

(c) in the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons";

(d) in section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

(3) In section 145 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (rules) subsection (1)(e) (which relates to witness orders) shall be omitted.
(4) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'
70 Insert the following new clause—
SUMMONS TO WITNESS TO ATTEND CROWN COURT
'.—(1) The Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following shall be substituted for section 2 (summons to witness to attend Crown Court)—
"issue of witness summons on application
Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court.
2.—(1) This section applies where the Crown Court is satisfied that—

(a) a person is likely to be able to give evidence likely to be material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, for the purpose of any criminal proceedings before the Crown Court, and

(b) the person will not voluntarily attend as a witness or will not voluntarily produce the document or thing.

(2) In such a case the Crown Court shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to the person concerned and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the Crown Court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

(b) give the evidence or produce the document or thing.

(3) A witness summons may only be issued under this section on an application; and the Crown Court may refuse to issue the summons if any requirement relating to the application is not fulfilled.
(4) Where a person has been committed for trial for any offence to which the proceedings concerned relate, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the committal.
(5) Where the proceedings concerned have been transferred to the Crown Court, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the transfer.
974
(6) Where the proceedings concerned relate to an offence in relation to which a bill of indictment has been preferred under the authority of section 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (bill preferred by direction of Court of Appeal, or by direction or with consent of judge) an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the bill was preferred.
(7) An application must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(8) Crown Court rules—

(a) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;

(b) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application on the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed;

(c) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be supported by an affidavit containing such matters as the rules may stipulate;

(d) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, make provision for enabling the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed to be present or represented at the hearing of the application for the witness summons.

(9) Provision contained in Crown Court rules by virtue of subsection (8)(c) above may in particular require an affidavit to—

(a) set out any charge on which the proceedings concerned are based;

(b) specify any stipulated evidence, document or thing in such a way as to enable the directed person to identify it;

(c) specify grounds for believing that the directed person is likely to be able to give any stipulated evidence or produce any stipulated document or thing;

(d) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated evidence is likely to be material evidence;

(e) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated document or thing is likely to be material evidence.

(10) In subsection (9) above—

(a) references to any stipulated evidence, document or thing are to any evidence, document or thing whose giving or production is proposed to be required by the witness summons;

(b) references to the directed person are to the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed.

Power to require advance production.
2A. A witness summons which is issued under section 2 above and which requires a person to produce a document or thing as mentioned in section 2(2) above may also require him to produce the document or thing—

(a) at a place stated in the summons, and

(b) at a time which is so stated and precedes that stated under section 2(2) above,

for inspection by the person applying for the summons.
Summons no longer needed.
213.—(1) If—

(a) a document or thing is produced in pursuance of a requirement imposed by a witness summons under section 2A above,

(b) the person applying for the summons concludes that a requirement imposed by the summons under section 2(2) above is no longer needed, and

975

(c) he accordingly applies to the Crown Court for a direction that the summons shall be of no further effect,

the court may direct accordingly.
(2) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(3) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the effect of a direction under this section to be notified to the person to whom the summons is directed.
Application to make summons ineffective.
2C.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 2 above is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court,

(b) satisfies the court that he was not served with notice of the application to issue the summons and that he was neither present nor represented at the hearing of the application, and

(c) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may he, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above it is immaterial—

(a) whether or not Crown Court rules require the person to he served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

(b) whether or not Crown Court rules enable the person to be present or represented at the hearing of the application.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) above "served" means—

(a) served in accordance with Crown Court rules, in a case where such rules require the person to be served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

(b) served in such way as appears reasonable to the court to which the application is made under this section, in any other case.

(4) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(5) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(6) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application under this section on the person on whose application the witness summons was issued.
(7) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
(8) Where a direction is made under this section that a witness summons shall be of no effect, the person on whose application the summons was issued may be ordered to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application under this section,
(9) Any costs payable under an order made under subsection (8) above shall be taxed by the proper officer of the court, and payment of those costs shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order for payment of costs made by the High Court in a civil case or as a sum adjudged summarily to be paid as a civil debt.
976
Issue of witness sutntnons of court's own motion.
Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion.
2D. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

(b) give evidence, or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

Application to make summons ineffective.
2E.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 2D above is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court, and

(b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
Other provisions".
(3) In section 3 (punishment for disobedience to witness summons) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Any person who without just excuse disobeys a requirement made by any court under section 2A above shall be guilty of contempt of that court and may be punished summarily by that court as if his contempt had been committed in the face of the court."
(4) In section 3, in subsection (2) for the words "such disobedience" there shall be substituted "any disobedience mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A) above".
(5) In section 4 (further process to secure attendance of witness) in the proviso to subsection (1) after the word "give" there shall be inserted "evidence likely to be".
(6) Schedule 1 (application for direction that witness summons shall be of no effect) shall be omitted.
(7) This section applies in relation to any proceedings for the purpose of which no witness summons has been issued under section 2 of the 1965 Act before the appointed day.
(8) The reference in subsection (7) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
71 Insert the following new clause—
WITNESS SUMMONS: SECURING ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS
`.—(1) In section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (judge of High Court may issue warrant to arrest witness in respect of whom witness summons is in force) for the words "High Court" there shall be substituted "Crown Court".
(2) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'

977
72 Insert the following new clause—
USE OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
'Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act (which relates to the use at the trial of written statements and depositions admitted in evidence in committal proceedings) shall have effect.'
73 Insert the following new clause—
PROOF BY WRITTEN STATEMENT
'.—(1) In section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (proof by written statement) in subsection (3)(a) (statement by person under 21 must give his age) for "twenty-one" there shall be substituted "eighteen".
(2) This section applies in relation to statements tendered in evidence on or after the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
74 Clause 54, page 34, line 4, at end insert 'by order.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 74.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 74.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995
'.—(1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 27 (breach of bail conditions: offences) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) The fact that the subsequent offence was committed while the accused was on bail shall, unless challenged—

(a) in the case of proceedings on indictment, by giving notice of a preliminary objection under paragraph (b) of section 72(1) of this Act or under that paragraph as applied by section 71(2) of this Act; or

(b) in summary proceedings, by preliminary objection before his plea is recorded,

be held as admitted.".
(3) In subsection (1) of section 65 (prevention of delay in trials), for the words from "shall be discharged forthwith" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted—

"(a) shall be discharged forthwith from any indictment as respects the offence; and

(b) shall not at any time be proceeded against on indictment as respects the offence".

(4) In Schedule 9 (certificates as to proof of certain routine matters), in the entry relating to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for "Section 114(4)" in column I there shall be substituted "Section 112(1)".'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.
This new clause amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It is designed to achieve three things: first, it applies existing evidential presumptions to the new arrangements for tackling offending while on bail, introduced in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 which received Royal Assent last year;
978
secondly, it states that the time limits in Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for the commencement of trials apply to proceedings on indictment only; and, thirdly, it corrects a textual error in the recent consolidation of Scottish criminal procedure legislation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS
'In section 148(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (power of court to act where another may act) the reference to that Act includes a reference to this Act.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with Commons in their Amendment No. 76.
This new clause is designed to ensure that anything which a magistrates' court may do under the Bill may be done by any other magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessional area. This principle already operates for magistrates' courts proceedings under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
It is needed because the bench of magistrates which is to try a case may not be the same as the bench which was originally constituted for the purposes of those proceedings. Unlike judges in the Crown Court, the great majority of magistrates can only sit part-time. If the proceedings are adjourned for any reason, the accused may well find himself up before a different bench when he returns.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought we said that when the Bill was before the House, and the Government did not agree with us. I am delighted to see the change of heart.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
77 Clause 59, page 35, line 34, leave out 'power of the Secretary of State to make an order' and insert 'powers of the Secretary of State to make orders'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 to 81. All of these amendments are designed to tidy up the drafting of Clause 59.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
78 Clause 59, page 35, line 36, leave out 'The' and insert 'Any'.
79 Page 35, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) Any order or regulations may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.'

979
80 Page 35, line 39, leave out 'The power to make an order' and insert 'Any power to make an order or regulations'
81 Page 36, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'subject' in line 2 and insert 'A statutory instrument containing—

(a) an order under section (Application to armed forces), or

(b) regulations, shall be'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
82 After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION TO ARMED FORCES
'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to section 57(2) and (3), nothing in this Act applies to—

(a) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;

(c) any investigation conducted with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence under any of those Acts or whether a person charged with such an offence is guilty of it.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) make as regards any proceedings falling within subsection (3) provision which is equivalent to the provisions contained in or made under Part I, subject to such modifications as he thinks fit and specifies in the order;

(b) make as regards any investigation falling within subsection (4) provision which is equivalent to the provisions contained in or made under Part II, subject to such modifications as he thinks fit and specifies in the order.

(3) The proceedings falling within this subsection are—

(a) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Army Act 1955;

(b) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Air Force Act 1955;

(c) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(d) proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court.

(4) An investigation falls within this subsection if it is conducted with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence under any of the Acts mentioned in subsection (3) or whether a person charged with such an offence is guilty of it.
(5) An order under this section may make provision in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and may in particular apply any of the provisions concerned subject to such modifications as he thinks fit and specifies in the order.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of section 59(2A), an order under this section may include provision—

(a) repealing section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (alibi) as it applies to proceedings before courts martial;

(b) amending or repealing any provision of section 12 of that Act or of section 57 above.'

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82. It is a long-established principle that procedures in service courts should follow those in civilian courts as closely as possible. This new clause reflects that principle by giving the Secretary of State power to make an order for the purposes of proceedings before a court martial and standing civilian court and supporting investigations, containing provisions equivalent to those in Parts I and II of the Bill relating to disclosure and a code of practice. In doing so, the new clause makes it clear that subject to an order being made, nothing in the Bill applies to those proceedings or to supporting investigations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
83 Clause 60, page 36, line 5, leave out '56,' and insert `(Road traffic and transport: provision of specimens), 56, (Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995), 57(2) and (3) and (Application to armed forces),'.
84 Page 36, line 7, at end insert—
'(bb) paragraph 4A of Schedule 4;'.
85 Page 36, line 9, at end insert—
`(1A) Section (Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995) extends only to Scotland.'
86 Page 36, line 10, leave out '54' and insert '(Reinstatement of certain provisions), (Committal proceedings), (Abolition of witness orders), (Witness swnmons: securing attendance of witness), (Use of written statements and depositions at trial)'.
87 Page 36, line 13, at end insert—
'(4) Section 57(2) and (3) extend to any place where proceedings before courts martial may be held.
(5) Section (Application to armed forces) extends as follows—

(a) so far as it relates to proceedings, it extends to any place where such proceedings may be held;

(b) so far as it relates to investigations, it extends to any place where such investigations may be conducted.'

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 87. These amendments to Clause 60 are all consequential on amendments made to the Bill in the House of Commons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 87.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
88 Clause 62, page 36, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
89 Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new schedule—
'COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
PART I
MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1980
Introduction
1. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended as mentioned in this Part of this Schedule.

981
Amendments
2.—(1) Section 4 (general nature of committal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
"(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, evidence tendered before examining justices shall be tendered in the presence of the accused."
(3) In subsection (4) for the word "given" (in each place) there shall be substituted "tendered".
3. The following sections shall be inserted after section 5—
"Evidence which is admissible.
5A.—(1) Evidence falling within subsection (2) below, and only that evidence, shall be admissible by a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.
(2) Evidence falls within this subsection if it—

(a) is tendered by or on behalf of the prosecutor, and

(b) falls within subsection (3) below.

(3) The following evidence falls within this subsection—

(a) written statements complying with section 5B below;

(b) the documents or other exhibits (if any) referred to in such statements;

(c) depositions complying with section 5C below;

(d) the documents or other exhibits (if any) referred to in such depositions;

(e) statements complying with section 5D below;

(f) documents falling within section 5E below.

(4) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Written statements.
5B.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a written statement complies with this section if—

(a) the conditions falling within subsection (2) below are met, and

(b) such of the conditions falling within subsection (3) below as apply are met.

(2) The conditions falling within this subsection are that—

(a) the statement purports to be signed by the person who made it;

(b) the statement contains a declaration by that person to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, he would be liable to prosecution if he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true;

(c) before the statement is tendered in evidence a copy of the statement is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to each of the other parties to the proceedings.

(3) The conditions falling within this subsection are that—

(a) if the statement is made by a person under 18 years old, it gives his age;

(b) if it is made by a person who cannot read it, it is read to him before he signs it and is accompanied by a declaration by the person who so read the statement to the effect that it was so read;

(c) if it refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy given to any other party to the proceedings under subsection (2)(c) above is accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary to enable the party to whom it is given to inspect that document or a copy of it.

982
(4) So much of any statement as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.
(5) Any document or other object referred to as an exhibit and identified in a statement admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall be treated as if it had been produced as an exhibit and identified in court by the maker of the statement.
(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Depositions.
5C.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a deposition complies with this section if—

(a) a copy of it is sent to the prosecutor under section 97A(9) below,

(b) the condition falling within subsection (2) below is met, and

(c) the condition falling within subsection (3) below is met, in a case where it applies.

(2) The condition falling within this subsection is that before the magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence concerned as examining justices a copy of the deposition is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to each of the other parties to the proceedings.
(3) The condition falling within this subsection is that, if the deposition refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy given to any other party to the proceedings under subsection (2) above is accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary to enable the party to whom it is given to inspect that document or a copy of it.
(4) So much of any deposition as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any deposition as is not read aloud.
(5) Any document or other object referred to as an exhibit and identified in a deposition admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall be treated as if it had been produced as an exhibit and identified in court by the person whose evidence is taken as the deposition.
(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Statements.
5D.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a statement complies with this section if the conditions falling within subsections (2) to (4) below are met.
(2) The condition falling within this subsection is that, before the committal proceedings begin, the prosecutor notifies the magistrates' court and each of the other parties to the proceedings that he believes—

(a) that the statement might by virtue of section 23 or 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents) be admissible as evidence if the case came to trial, and

(b) that the statement would not be admissible as evidence otherwise than by virtue of section 23 or 24 of that Act if the case came to trial.

(3) The condition falling within this subsection is that—

(a) the prosecutor's belief is based on information available to him at the time he makes the notification,

(b) he has reasonable grounds for his belief, and

(c) he gives the reasons for his belief when he makes the notification.

983
(4) The condition falling within this subsection is that when the court or a party is notified as mentioned in subsection (2) above a copy of the statement is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to the court or the party concerned.
(5) So much of any statement as is in writing and is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.
Other documents.
5E.—(l) The following documents fall within this section—

(a) any document which by virtue of any enactment is evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;

(b) any document which by virtue of any enactment is admissible, or may be used, or is to be admitted or received, in or as evidence in such proceedings;

(c) any document which by virtue of any enactment may be considered in such proceedings;

(d) any document whose production constitutes proof in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment;

(e) any document by the production of which evidence may be given in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment.

(2) In subsection (1) above—

(a) references to evidence include references to prima facie evidence;

(b) references to any enactment include references to any provision of this Act.

(3) So much of any document as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any document as is not read aloud.
(4) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Proof by production of copy.
5F.—(1) Where a statement, deposition or document is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 5B, 5C, 5D or 5E above it may be proved by the production of—

(a) the statement, deposition or document, or

(b) a copy of it or the material part of it.

(2) Subsection (1)(b) above applies whether or not the statement, deposition or document is still in existence.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section how many removes there are between a copy and the original.
(4) In this section "copy", in relation to a statement, deposition or document, means anything onto which information recorded in the statement, deposition or document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly.
4. In section 6 (discharge or committal for trial) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—
"(1) A magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices shall on consideration of the evidence—

(a) commit the accused for trial if it is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to put him on trial by jury for any indictable offence;

(b) discharge him if it is not of that opinion and he is in custody for no other cause than the offence under inquiry;

984
but the preceding provisions of this subsection have effect subject to the provisions of this and any other Act relating to the summary trial of indictable offences.
(2) If a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices is satisfied that all the evidence tendered by or on behalf of the prosecutor falls within section 5A(3) above, it may commit the accused for trial for the offence without consideration of the contents of any statements, depositions or other documents, and without consideration of any exhibits which are not documents, unless—

(a) the accused or one of the accused has no legal representative acting for him in the case, or

(b) a legal representative for the accused or one of the accused, as the case may be, has requested the court to consider a submission that there is insufficient evidence to put that accused on trial by jury for the offence;

and subsection (1) above shall not apply to a committal for trial under this subsection."
5.—(1) Section 25 (change from summary trial to committal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (2) and (6) for the words "may adjourn the hearing without remanding the accused" there shall be substituted "shall adjourn the hearing."
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7)—
"(8) If the court adjourns the hearing under subsection (2) or (6) above it may (if it thinks fit) do so without remanding the accused."
6. Section 28 (using in summary trial evidence given in committal proceedings) shall be omitted.
7. In section 97 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) in subsection (1)—

(a) the words "at an inquiry into an indictable offence by a magistrates' court for that commission area or" shall be omitted;

(b) for the words "such a court" there shall be substituted "a magistrates' court for that commission area".

8. The following section shall be inserted after section 97—
"Summons or warrant as to committal proceedings.
97A.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where a justice of the peace for any commission area is satisfied that—

(a) any person in England or Wales is likely to be able to make on behalf of the prosecutor a written statement containing material evidence, or produce on behalf of the prosecutor a document or other exhibit likely to be material evidence, for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,

(b) the person will not voluntarily make the statement or produce the document or other exhibit, and

(c) the magistrates' court mentioned in paragraph (a) above is a court for the commission area concerned.

(2) In such a case the justice shall issue a summons directed to that person requiring him to attend before a justice at the time and place appointed in the summons to have his evidence taken as a deposition or to produce the document or other exhibit.
(3) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence on oath of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) above, and also that it is probable that a summons under subsection (2) above would not procure the result required by it, the justice may instead of issuing a summons issue a warrant to arrest the person concerned and bring him before a justice at the time and place specified in the warrant.

985
(4) A summons may also be issued under subsection (2) above if the justice is satisfied that the person concerned is outside the British Islands, but no warrant may be issued under subsection (3) above unless the justice is satisfied by evidence on oath that the person concerned is in England or Wales.
(5) If—

(a) a person fails to attend before a justice in answer to a summons under this section,

(b) the justice is satisfied by evidence on oath that he is likely to be able to make a statement or produce a document or other exhibit as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above,

(c) it is proved on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that he has been duly served with the summons and that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for costs and expenses, and

(d) it appears to the justice that there is no just excuse for the failure,

the justice may issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before a justice at a time and place specified in the warrant.
(6) Where—

(a) a summons is issued under subsection (2) above or a warrant is issued under subsection (3) or (5) above, and

(b) the summons or warrant is issued with a view to securing that a person has his evidence taken as a deposition,

the time appointed in the summons or specified in the warrant shall be such as to enable the evidence to be taken as a deposition before a magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence concerned as examining justices.
(7) If any person attending or brought before a justice in pursuance of this section refuses without just excuse to have his evidence taken as a deposition, or to produce the document or other exhibit, the justice may do one or both of the following—

(a) commit him to custody until the expiration of such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the summons or warrant or until he sooner has his evidence taken as a deposition or produces the document or other exhibit;

(b) impose on him a fine not exceeding £2,500.

(8) A fine imposed under subsection (7) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.
(9) If in pursuance of this section a person has his evidence taken as a deposition, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the deposition to the prosecutor.
(10) If in pursuance of this section a person produces an exhibit which is a document, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the document to the prosecutor.
(11) If in pursuance of this section a person produces an exhibit which is not a document, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the prosecutor of the fact and of the nature of the exhibit."
9. Section 102 (written statements before examining justices) shall be omitted.
10.—(1) Section 103 (evidence of children in certain committal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) In any proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring as examining justices into an offence to which this section applies, a statement made in writing by or taken in writing from a child shall be admissible in evidence of any matter."
986
(3) Subsections (3) and (4) (exclusion of subsection (1) and of section 28) shall be omitted.
11. Section 105 (deposition of person dangerously ill may be given in evidence before examining justices) shall be omitted.
12. In section 106 (false written statements tendered in evidence) in subsection (1) for "tendered" there shall be substituted "admitted" and for "section 102" there shall be substituted "section 5B".
13. In Schedule 3 the following shall be substituted for paragraph 2(a) (representative may make statement on behalf of corporation before examining justices)—
`(a) make before examining justices such representations as could be made by an accused who is not a corporation;".
PART II
OTHER PROVISIONS
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867
14. Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 (statements taken under section 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) shall he omitted.
Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879
15. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879—
"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices, this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "orally or"."
16. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 5 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879—
"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices, this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "either orally or"."
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933
17. In section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedure for indictment of offenders) in proviso (i) to subsection (2) for the words "in any examination or deposition taken before a justice in his presence" there shall be substituted "to the magistrates' court inquiring into that offence as examining justices".
Criminal Justice Act 1948
18. In section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (evidence by certificate) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—
"(5A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

(a) subsection (4), and

(b) in subsection (5), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it."

Theft Act 1968
19. In section 27 of the Theft Act 1968 (evidence on charge of theft or handling stolen goods) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (4) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices that subsection shall have effect with the omission of the words from "subject to the following conditions" to the end of the subsection."
20. In section 28 of the Theft Act 1968 (orders for restitution) in subsection (4) for the words from "the depositions" to the end of the subsection there shall be

987
substituted "and such written statements, depositions and other documents as were tendered by or on behalf of the prosecutor at any committal proceedings".
Children and Young Persons Act 1969
21. In Schedule 5 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, in paragraph 55 for the words "section 102" there shall be substituted "section 5B".
Criminal Justice Act 1972
22.—(1) Section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (written statements made outside England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) the following words shall be omitted—

(a) "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";

(b) "which respectively allow";

(c) "committal proceedings and in other";

(d) "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980";

(e) "which punish the making of;

(f) "102 or";

(g) ", as the case may be".

(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) The following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them,

(b) section 5B of that Act, and

(c) section 106 of that Act,

shall apply where written statements are made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as where written statements are made in England and Wales.
(1B) The following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them, and

(b) section 5B of that Act,

shall (subject to subsection (1C) below) apply where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom.
(1C) Where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom—

(a) section 5B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply with the omission of subsections (2)(b) and (3A);

(b) paragraph 1 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements at trial) shall not apply."

(4) Subsection (2) shall be omitted.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976
23.—(1) Section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (application of restrictions on evidence at certain trials to committal proceedings etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) Where a magistrates' court inquires into a rape offence as examining justices, then, except with the consent of the court, no restricted matter shall be raised; and for this purpose a restricted matter is a matter as regards which evidence could not be adduced and a question could not be asked without leave in pursuance of section 2 of this Act if—

(a) the inquiry were a trial at which a person is charged as mentioned in section 2(1) of this Act, and

988

(b) each of the accused at the inquiry were charged at the trial with the offence or offences of which he is accused at the inquiry."

(3) In subsection (2) for the words "evidence or question" (in each place) there shall be substituted "matter".
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
24. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 71 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (microfilm copies)—
"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "authenticated in such manner as the court may approve."
25. In section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (confessions) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (8)—
"(9) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section", and

(b) subsections (2) to (6) and (8)."

26. In section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (exclusion of unfair evidence) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(3) This section shall not apply in the case of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
27. In Schedule 3 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (computer records) at the end of paragraph 9 there shall be inserted the words "; but the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply where the court is a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
Criminal Justice Act 1988
28. In section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (first-hand hearsay) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
29. In section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (business etc. documents) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
30. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents)—
'This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
31. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (proof of statements contained in documents)—
"This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
32. In section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (expert reports) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

989

(a) in subsection (1) the words "whether or not the person making it attends to give oral evidence in those proceedings", and

(b) subsections (2) to (4)."

33. In section 32A(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (video recordings) the words "notwithstanding that the child witness is not called at the committal proceedings" shall be omitted.
34. In section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc.) in subsection (1) for the words from "in an examination" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted "to a magistrates' court inquiring into the offence as examining justices".
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
35. In section 11 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (evidence by certificate as to driver, user or owner) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

(a) subsection (2), and

(b) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it."

36. In section 13 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (admissibility of records as evidence) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(7) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (2) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings" were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4) the word "and" were inserted at the end of paragraph (a);

(c) in subsection (4), paragraphs (c) and (d) and the words "as if the accused had appeared and admitted it" were omitted."

37. In section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (specimens) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(6A) Where the proceedings mentioned in section 15(1) of this Act are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of subsection (4)."
38. In section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (speeding etc.) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (8)—
"(8A) Where the proceedings for an offence to which this section applies are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect as if in subsection (8) the words from "and nothing" to the end of the subsection were omitted."
PART III
COMMENCEMENT
39. Parts I and II of this Schedule shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'
90 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS
Statements
1.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) a written statement has been admitted in evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.

990

(b) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,

(c) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the statement complied with section 5B of that Act prior to the committal for trial,

(d) the statement purports to be signed by a justice of the peace, and

(e) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the statement may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the statement was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,

(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply, or

(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.
Depositions
2.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (summons or warrant to have evidence taken as a deposition etc.) a person has had his evidence taken as a deposition for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,

(b) the deposition has been admitted in evidence in those proceedings,

(c) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,

(d) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the deposition complied with section 5C of that Act prior to the committal for trial,

(e) the deposition purports to be signed by the justice before whom it purports to have been taken, and

(f) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the deposition may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the deposition was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,

(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply, or

(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.
Signatures
3.—(1) A justice who signs a certificate authenticating one or more relevant statements or depositions shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 as signing the statement or deposition or (as the case may be) each of them.

991
(2) For this purpose—

(a) a relevant statement is a written statement made by a person for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;

(b) a relevant deposition is a deposition made in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the purposes of such proceedings.

Time limit for objection
4. Without prejudice to section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (rules of court) the power to make rules under that section includes power to make provision—

(a) requiring an objection under paragraph 1(3)(c) or 2(3)(c) to be made within a period prescribed in the rules;

(b) allowing the court of trial at its discretion to permit such an objection to be made outside any such period.

Retrial
5. In Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (procedural and other provisions applicable on order for retrial) in paragraph 1 for the words from "section 13(3)" to "before the original trial" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements and depositions) shall not apply to any written statement or deposition read as evidence at the original trial".
Repeals
6.—(1) Section 13(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (which relates to depositions taken before examining justices and is superseded by paragraph 2 above) shall be omitted.
(2) Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by paragraph 3 above) shall be omitted.
Commencement
7. This Schedule shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90A to 90F, as amendments to Amendment No. 90, not moved.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Schedule 2, page 41, line 42, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
92 Page 45, line 16, at end insert—
'(aa) on or after the appointed day the accused is committed for trial for the offence,'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
992
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
93 Schedule 3, page 45, line 41, leave out from 'Reserve' to end of line 47.
94 Page 46, line 6, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(aa) a person is charged with an indictable offence and he is committed for trial for the offence concerned,
(a) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer given under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (serious or complex fraud),
(ab) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer given under Article 4 of the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (certain cases involving children),'.
95 Page 46, line 21, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
'5.—(1) In section 5(2) for "section 5(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987" substitute "Article 4(7) of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988".
(2) In section 5(2A) for "paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991" substitute "paragraph 3 of Schedule I to the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995".'
96 Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
'5A. In section (Time limits: transitional) (1) for "the bill of indictment is preferred" substitute "the indictment is presented".
5B. After section 11 there shall be inserted—
"Public interest: review for scheduled offences.
11A.—(1) This section applies where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2) and the offence charged is a scheduled offence within the meaning of section I of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
(2) At any time—

(a) after a court makes an order under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(5) or 9(8), and

(b) before the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case concerned,

the accused may apply to the court for a review of the question whether it is still not in the public interest to disclose material affected by its order.
(3) In such a case the court must review that question, and if it concludes that it is in the public interest to disclose material to any extent—

(a) it shall so order; and

(b) it shall take such steps as are reasonable to inform the prosecutor of its order.

(4) Where the prosecutor is informed of an order made under subsection (3) he must act accordingly having regard to the provisions of this Part (unless he decides not to proceed with the case concerned)."
5C. In section 12(1) at the end add "and section 11A does not apply".
5D. In section (Applications: opportunity to be heard) after "11(2)" insert ", 11A(2)" and after "11(3)" insert ", 11A(3)".
5E. In section (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(1)(a) after "11" insert 11A".'

993
97 Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
'5F. In section (Confidentiality: contravention) at the end add—
"(11) In section 13 (legal aid) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act) in subsection (1)(a) after sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be inserted—
"(iia) by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court under section (Confidentiality: contravention) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; or"."'.
98 Page 46, line 36, after '6' insert '—(1)'.
99 Page 46, line 42, at end insert—
'(2) In section 13(2)(a) after "11(2)" insert ", 11A(2)".
(3) In section 13(2)(b) after "11(3)" insert ", 11A(3)".
(4) In section 13 omit subsection (2A).'
100 Page 47, line 1, leave out from 'for' to end of line 5 and insert 'paragraph (d) substitute— ".'
101 Page 47, line 9, leave out from 'subsections' to end of line 14 and insert '(2) and (3) substitute— ".'
102 Page 47, line 23, leave out '10 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991' and insert '11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996'.
103 Page 47, line 36, at end insert—
'11A. In section (Notices of transfer) for subsections (1) to (8) substitute—
"(1) Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud)(Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (notices of transfer in cases of serious or complex fraud) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In paragraph (7)(a) (regulations) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".
(3) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (7)—
"(7A) Regulations under paragraph (7)(a) may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(4) In Schedule 1 to the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (notices of transfer in certain cases involving children) paragraph 3 (regulations) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".
(6) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)—
"(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(7) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1995 Order (reporting restrictions) in sub-paragraph (8) for the words "sub-paragraphs (5) and (6)" there shall be substituted "sub-paragraphs (5) and (7)".
(8) This section applies where a notice of transfer is given under Article 3 of the 1988 Order or Article 4 of the 1995 Order (as the case may be) on or after the appointed day".
11B. In section (War crimes: abolition of transfer procedure) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
994
"(1) Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991 and section 1(4) of that Act so far as relating thereto (transfer procedure in Northern Ireland in cases of war crimes) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In Article 29(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (free legal aid in Crown Court) sub-paragraph (d) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall cease to have effect."'.
104 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17A. For section (Road traffic and transport: provision of specimens) substitute—
"Road traffic: provision of specimens.
.—(1) In Article 18(4) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (provision of blood or urine in course of investigating whether certain road traffic offences have been committed) after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(bb) a device of the type mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) has been used in the circumstances described in paragraph (2) but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned, or".
(2) This section applies where it is proposed to make a requirement mentioned in Article 18(4) of the 1995 Order after the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland by order.
(4) The power of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make an order under subsection (3) shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979."'.
105 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17B. In section (Checks against fingerprints etc.) for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) In Article 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph (1) (checks against fingerprints etc. where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence)—
"(1) Where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence or has been charged with such an offence or has been informed that he will be reported for such an offence, fingerprints or samples or the information derived from samples taken under any power conferred by this Part from the person may be checked against—

(a) other fingerprints or samples to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held by or on behalf of a police force (or police forces) falling within paragraph (1A) or are held in connection with or as the result of an investigation of an offence;

(b) information derived from other samples if the information is contained in records to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a).

(1A) Each of the following police forces falls within this paragraph—

(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve;

(b) a police force within the meaning given by section 62 of the Police Act 1964;

995

(c) a police force within the meaning given by section 50 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

(d) the States of Jersey Police Force;

(e) the salaried police force of the Island of Guernsey;

(f) the Isle of Man Constabulary."."'.

106 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17C. For section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court) substitute—
".—(1) After section 51 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 there shall be inserted—
"Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court.
51A.—(1) This section applies where the Crown Court is satisfied that—

(a) a person is likely to be able to give evidence likely to be material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, for the purpose of any criminal proceedings before the Crown Court, and

(b) the person will not voluntarily attend as a witness or will not voluntarily produce the document or thing.

(2) In such a case the Crown Court shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to the person concerned and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the Crown Court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

(b) give the evidence or produce the document or thing.

(3) A witness summons may only be issued under this section on an application; and the Crown Court may refuse to issue the summons if any requirement relating to the application is not fulfilled.
(4) Where a person has been committed for trial for any offence to which the proceedings concerned relate, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the committal.
(5) Where the proceedings concerned have been transferred to the Crown Court, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the transfer.
(6) Where the proceedings concerned relate to an offence in relation to which an indictment has been presented under the authority of section 2(2)(c), (d), (e) or (f) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the indictment is presented.
(7) An application must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(8) Crown Court rules—

(a) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;

(b) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application on the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed;

(c) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be supported by an affidavit containing such matters as the rules may stipulate;

(d) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, make provision for enabling the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed to be present or represented at the hearing of the application for the witness summons.

996
(9) Provision contained in Crown Court rules by virtue of subsection (8)(c) may in particular require an affidavit to—

(a) set out any charge on which the proceedings concerned are based;

(b) specify any stipulated evidence, document or thing in such a way as to enable the directed person to identify it;

(c) specify grounds for believing that the directed person is likely to be able to give any stipulated evidence or produce any stipulated document or thing;

(d) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated evidence is likely to be material evidence;

(e) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated document or thing is likely to be material evidence.

(10) In subsection (9)—

(a) references to any stipulated evidence, document or thing are to any evidence, document or thing whose giving or production is proposed to be required by the witness summons;

(b) references to the directed person are to the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to he directed.

Power to require advance production.
51B. A witness summons which is issued under section 51A and which requires a person to produce a document or thing as mentioned in section 51A(2) may also require him to produce the document or thing—

(a) at a place stated in the summons, and

(b) at a time which is so stated and precedes that stated under section 51A(2),

for inspection by the person applying for the summons.
Summons no longer needed.
51C.—(1) If—

(a) a document or thing is produced in pursuance of a requirement imposed by a witness summons under section 51B,

(b) the person applying for the summons concludes that a requirement imposed by the summons under section 51A(2) is no longer needed, and

(c) he accordingly applies to the Crown Court for a direction that the summons shall be of no further effect,

the court may direct accordingly.
(2) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(3) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the effect of a direction under this section to be notified to the person to whom the summons is directed.
Application to make summons ineffective.
51D.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 51 A is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court,

(b) satisfies the court that he was not served with notice of the application to issue the summons and that he was neither present nor represented at the hearing of the application, and

(c) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to he material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial—

(a) whether or not Crown Court rules require the person to be served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

997

(b) whether or not Crown Court rules enable the person to be present or represented at the hearing of the application.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) "served" means—

(a) served in accordance with Crown Court rules, in a case where such rules require the person to be served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

(b) served in such way as appears reasonable to the Crown Court, in any other case.

(4) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(5) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(6) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application under this section on the person on whose application the witness summons was issued.
(7) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
(8) Where a direction is made under this section that a witness summons shall be of no effect, the person on whose application the summons was issued may be ordered to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application under this section.
(9) Any costs payable under an order made under subsection (8) shall be taxed by the Master (Taxing Office), and payment of those costs shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order for payment of costs made by the High Court in a civil case or as a sum adjudged summarily to be paid as a civil debt.
Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion.
51E. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons; and

(b) give evidence or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

Application to make summons ineffective.
51F.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 51E is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court, and

(b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

998

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
Punishment for disobedience to witness summons.
51G.—(1) Any person who without just excuse—

(a) disobeys a witness summons requiring him to attend before the Crown Court; or

(b) disobeys a requirement made by the Crown Court under section 51B,

shall be guilty of contempt of that court and may be punished summarily by that court as if his contempt were in the face of the court.
(2) A person shall not be committed to prison by reason of any disobedience mentioned in subsection (1) for a period exceeding three months.
Further process to secure attendance of witnesses.
51H.—(1) If the Crown Court is satisfied by evidence on oath that—

(a) a witness in respect of whom a witness summons is in force is unlikely to comply with the summons; and

(b) the witness is likely to be able to give evidence likely to be material evidence or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence in the proceedings,

the Crown Court may issue a warrant to arrest the witness and bring him before the court.
(2) Where a witness who is required to attend before the Crown Court by virtue of a witness summons fails to attend in compliance with the summons, the Crown Court may—

(a) in any case, cause to be served on him a notice requiring him to attend the court forthwith or at such time as may be specified in the notice;

(b) if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has failed to attend without just excuse, or if he has failed to comply with a notice under paragraph (a), issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before the court.

(3) A witness brought before the Crown Court in pursuance of a warrant under this section may be remanded by that court in custody or on bail (with or without sureties) until such time as the court may appoint for receiving his evidence or dealing with him under section 51G.
(4) Where a witness attends the Crown Court in pursuance of a notice under this section, the court may direct that the notice shall have effect as if it required him to attend at any later time appointed by the court for receiving his evidence or dealing with him under section 51G."
(2) No subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum shall issue after the appointed day in respect of any criminal proceedings for the purposes of which—

(a) a witness summons may be issued under section 51A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978; or

(b) a summons may be issued under Article 118 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (process for attendance of witnesses in magistrates' courts).

(3) In section 47(4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 after the words "Subject to" there shall be inserted the words "section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court)(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (subpoenas not to issue in certain criminal cases) and to".
(4) This section applies in relation to any proceedings for the purposes of which no summons requiring the attendance of a witness has been issued before the appointed day.

999
(5) The references in subsections (2) and (4) to the appointed day are to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order."'
107 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17D. In section (Proof by written statement)(1) for "section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" substitute "section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968" and for "subsection (3)(a)" substitute "subsection (4)(a)".'
108 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17E. In section 54 for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) In Article 10 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981—

(a) in paragraph (1) (power of Lord Chancellor to defray expenses in connection with proceedings) after the words "justice or clerk" (where they first occur) there shall be inserted "in relation to any matter other than a criminal matter", and

(b) after paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) The Lord Chancellor shall defray any expenses reasonably incurred by a resident magistrate or other justice of the peace or by a clerk of petty sessions in, or in connection with, any proceedings or claim brought as a result of the execution, or purported execution, of the office of that magistrate, justice or clerk in relation to any criminal matter, unless it is proved, in respect of the matters giving rise to the proceedings or claim, that he acted in bad faith."."'.
109 Page 49, line 11, at end insert—
'19A. For section (Power of magistrates' courts) substitute—
"Power of magistrates' courts.
.Anything authorised or required by this Act to be done by, to or before the magistrates' court by, to or before which any other thing was done, or is to be done, may be done by, to or before any magistrates' court acting for the same county court division as that court—.
110 Page 50, line 15, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
111 Page 53, line 25, at end insert—

'1A. WAR CRIMES

Chapter or Number

Short title

Extent of repeal

1981 NI 18.

The Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

In Article 29(2), sub-paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately before it.

1991 c.13.

The War Crimes Act 1991.

Section 1(4), so far as relating to Part II of the Schedule. Section 3(3). Part II of the Schedule.'

112 Page 53, line 25, at end insert—

'1B. SUMMONSES TO WITNESSES

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1831 c. 44.

The Tumultuous Risings (Ireland) Act 1831.

Section 8.

This repeal has effect in accordance with section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court) of this Act.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments to Schedule 3 contain modifications from Northern Ireland in consequence of Commons amendments relating to the law in England and Wales. I realise that the amendments
1000
tabled by the Opposition have not been moved and I hope that that is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants to do with those amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 93 to 112.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as our plea was rejected so coldly, we were not going to move the amendments to Amendment No. 90 and we accept that Amendment No. 90 has been agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
113 Schedule 4, page 54, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.
114 Page 54, column 3, leave out line 17 and insert—

'Section 34(7).

Section 36(8).

Section 37(7).

Section 44.

Schedule 4.

In Schedule 11, the entries mentioned in note 1 below.'
115 Page 54, line 18, at end insert—
'1. The entries in Schedule 11 to the 1994 Act are those relating to the following—

(a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;

(b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;

(c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";

(d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";

(e) in section 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the words "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and", "which respectively allow", "committal proceedings and in other", "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980", "which punish the making of', "102 or" and ", as the case may be", and section 46(2) of that Act;

(f) in section 32(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 the words "tried or";

(g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";

(h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(1)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

(i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";

(j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";

(k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;

(l) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;

(m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or". and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.'

116 Page 54, line 19, leave out 'These repeals' and insert '2. The repeals under this paragraph (reinstatement of certain provisions)'.

1001
117 Page 54, line 19, leave out 'Schedule 1 to' and insert 'section (Reinstatement of certain provisions) of'.
118 Page 54, line 19, at end insert—

'1A. WAR CRIMES

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1988 c.34.

Legal Aid Act 1988.

Section 20(4)(bb).

1991 c.13.

War Crimes Act 1991.

In section 1(4) the words "England, Wales or". Section 3(2). Part I of the Schedule.'

119 Page 54, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.
120 Page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'4A. SPECIMENS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1992 c.42.

Transport and Works Act 1992.

In section 31(4) the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b).

This repeal has effect in accordance with section (Road traffic and transport: provision of specimens) of this Act.'
121 Page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'4B. WITNESS ORDERS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1965 c.69.

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

Section 1. In section 3(1) the words "witness order or". In section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or". In the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons". In section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

1971 c.23.

Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 45(1).

1980 c.43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 145(1)(e).

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under section (Abolition of witness orders) of this Act.'
122 Page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'4C. SUMMONSES TO WITNESSES

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1965 c.69.

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

Schedule 1.

1971 c.23.

Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 45(2) and (5).

These repeals have effect in accordance with section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court) of this Act.'
123 Page 56, line 11, at end insert—

'6A. COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1867 c. 35.

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867.

Section 6. Section 7.

1972 c. 71.

Criminal Justice Act 1972.

In section 46(1) the following words—"Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and"; "which respectively allow"; "committal proceedings and in other"; "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980"; "which punish the making of; "102 or"; ", as the case may be". Section 46(2).

1980 c. 43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 28. In section 97(1) the words "at an inquiry into an indictable offence by a magistrates' court for that commission area or". Section 102. Section 103(3) and (4). Section 105. In Schedule 7, paragraph 2.

1988 c. 33.

Criminal Justice Act 1988.

In section 32A(10) the words "notwithstanding that the child witness is not called at the committal proceedings". In Schedule 15, paragraph 68.

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under Schedule (Committal proceedings) to this Act.'
124 Page 56, line 11, at end insert—

'6B. STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1925 c.86.

Criminal Justice Act 1925.

Section 13(3).

1965 c.69.

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

In Part I of Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

1967 c.80.

Criminal Justice Act 1967.

Section 7.

1980 c.43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 63.

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 113 to 124. These amendments to the repeals schedule are all consequential on other amendments made to the Bill in the Commons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 113 to 124.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be able to help some of us who must administer the course of justice. Now that we have reached this stage of the Bill, does the Minister have any idea when the major procedural amendments are likely to be brought into force? A good deal of preparation needs to be done and it would help all concerned, in particular in the Crown Courts but also in the magistrates' courts, to have an idea of the timetable which the Government have in mind.
These provisions will be an enormous help in getting cases on, organised in time and brought before juries so that they can be properly considered. Any indication so that we can make some planning arrangements in the various courts would be greatly welcomed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, following on from what the noble Viscount said, we should bear in mind that the embodiment of the amendments in the Bill will require immense care and take a great deal of time. That is a factor that should be borne in mind perhaps in favour of the Government because it will need very great care.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a great deal of work is already underway in the department. The code of practice is almost ready to go out in its final draft form for consultation. The timescale that we are looking at is early 1997. We bear two points in mind. Of course this should be done as soon as is practicable but we must ensure that the work is done properly. Therefore, with an eye on both those objectives, we are looking at the early part of 1997.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill
5.47 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pilkington of Oxenford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Conspiracy to commit certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I must apologise for not having been present on Second Reading but I was detained in Somerset. I should like to welcome the Bill because it goes part way towards fulfilling this country's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
1004
I understand that someone in, for example, Bangkok or Manila who sends a fax or an Internet message with details of children for sale in those places to individuals in the United Kingdom would be causing incitement under the Bill and would therefore be liable to arrest if and when he came to the United Kingdom. That is a small advance on the present position.
Your Lordships may know that I have a parliamentary interest in this matter since the House has twice approved my Bill which provided extra-territorial jurisdiction for the United Kingdom courts in relation to the sexual abuse of children taking place overseas.
I do not in any way seek to delay the passage of the Bill and I shall not be pressing this Motion. However, I should like to ask the Government some questions of which I have given notice. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, will be able to tell me what progress is being made in relation to the Government's review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, especially in relation to sexual offences committed overseas against people under the age of 18.
Secondly, will the Minister tell me whether the strong legal opinions in favour of such jurisdiction expressed in the course of several debates in your Lordships' House are being taken into account? Finally, will the noble Earl say when the review will be brought to an end or carried through to a conclusion; whether its results or conclusions will be announced; and, in particular, whether they will be published? I should be grateful for a reply to those questions.
The Earl of Courtown: Clause 1 of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Pilkington will give the police and courts an additional weapon to use against those who sexually abuse children overseas. It is right that Parliament should enact measures which penalise preparatory acts committed in this country in support of these perverted activities abroad. The removal of Clause I from the Bill as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would lead to the Bill's impact being diluted, although I acknowledge what he said in his speech concerning not pressing his opposition to Clause 1. That removal would be unacceptable and, therefore, the Government cannot support it.
As he said, the noble Lord did indeed give me warning of the points that he was going to raise. I greatly appreciate that fact. The noble Lord asked what progress was being made on the Government's review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, especially in relation to sexual offences against people under 18 committed overseas. I understand that good progress is being made in the review. So far as concerns its conclusion, I can tell the noble Lord that it remains the hope of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that we shall announce the Government's conclusions, in the light of the review, before the House rises for the Summer Recess. The noble Lord also asked whether the results of the review would be made public. I shall have to write to him on that matter.
The noble Lord asked whether we were taking into account the views expressed in this and the other place,

1005
as well as those expressed outside. The review has, of course, taken full account of the arguments in favour of extra-territorial jurisdiction which have been expressed not only by Members of this Chamber in past debates on the issue—and which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, expressed again this evening—but also by honourable Members in another place, voluntary organisations and others working in the field. Those arguments have of course to be set against the considerable difficulties which have always existed in taking wider jurisdiction. Whatever the outcome of the review, it is unlikely to change our view that the best way of dealing with offending abroad is by enabling foreign authorities to bring prosecutions in their own countries, wherever possible.
1006
In conclusion, we support the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pilkington on—it is to be hoped—the successful completion of the Committee stage.
Lord Hylton: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. In passing, perhaps I may just remark that it would be most satisfactory if the results of the review could be made available before the start of the World Congress on Commercial Child Sexual Exploitation which takes place in Stockholm at the end of August. I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 1 stand part.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.

  South Tripura Camps: Refugees' Conditions
  South Tripura Camps: Refugees' Conditions
  EC Documents: Availability for Parliamentary Scrutiny
  EC Documents: Availability for Parliamentary Scrutiny
  Human Rights Conventions
  Human Rights Conventions
  Oftel: Complement
  Oftel: Complement
  Police Search Warrant: National Sporting Club
  Police Search Warrant: National Sporting Club
  Erlestoke Prison: CNA and Population
  Erlestoke Prison: CNA and Population
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications
  CJD: New Variant
  CJD: New Variant
  CJD and BSE
  CJD and BSE
  Central Science Laboratory: Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Targets
  Sports Council Grants
  Sports Council Grants